The linkages between biodiversity and climate …...6 Synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation .....39 7 Conclusion .....40 1 1 Executive Summary ... Scientific literature

The linkages between biodiversity and

climate change adaptation

A review of the recent scientific literature

March 2009

The United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring

Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is the biodiversity assessment and policy

implementation arm of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),

the world's foremost intergovernmental environmental organization. The centre

has been in operation since 1989, combining scientific research with practical

policy advice.

UNEP-WCMC provides objective, scientifically rigorous products and services to

help decision makers recognize the value of biodiversity and apply this knowledge to

all that they do. Its core business is managing data about ecosystems and biodiversity,

interpreting and analysing that data to provide assessments and policy analysis, and

making the results available to international decision-makers and businesses.

Prepared by

Alison Campbell, Valerie Kapos, Anna Chenery, Saiful Islam Kahn, Mariam

Rashid, Jörn Scharlemann, Barney Dickson

Disclaimer: The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies

of UNEP-WCMC or contributory organisations. The designations

employed and the presentations do not imply the expressions of any

opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP-WCMC or contributory

organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or

area or its authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or

boundaries.

Citation:

Acknowledgements

Campbell A., Kapos V., Chenery A., Kahn, S.I., Rashid M., Scharlemann

J.P.W., Dickson B. 2008. The linkages between biodiversity and climate

change mitigation UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

This work has been supported by the UK Department for Environment,

Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Environment, Finland

The linkages between biodiversity and climate change adaptation

Contents

1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 1 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4

2.1 Adaptation ....................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Biodiversity and adaptation ............................................................................. 4

3 The role of biodiversity in societal adaptation to climate change ......................... 6

3.1 Coastal adaptation ........................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Coastal defence ........................................................................................ 7 3.1.2 Fisheries ................................................................................................. 10

3.1.3 Reducing extreme event impacts ........................................................... 11 3.2 Adaptation in the water sector ....................................................................... 12

3.2.1 Adaptation to water stress ...................................................................... 13

3.2.2 Adaptation to flooding ........................................................................... 13 3.2.3 Integrated Watershed Management ....................................................... 14

3.3 Adaptation in agriculture ............................................................................... 15

3.3.1 Changes in location of cultivation ......................................................... 16 3.3.2 Changes to crops cultivated ................................................................... 16

3.3.3 Changes in agricultural practice ............................................................. 17

3.4 Forest adaptation ........................................................................................... 19

3.4.1 Natural forest ......................................................................................... 21 3.4.2 Plantation forest ..................................................................................... 21

3.5 Adaptation in the urban environment ............................................................ 22 3.6 Health ............................................................................................................ 23 3.7 Integration across sectors .............................................................................. 23

4 Adaptation strategies and their impact on biodiversity ........................................ 24

4.1 Coastal defence ............................................................................................. 24 4.1.1 Protection ............................................................................................... 24 4.1.2 Managed realignment and accommodation ........................................... 25

4.2 Water management ........................................................................................ 26

4.3 Agricultural practice ...................................................................................... 26 4.4 Urban environment adaptation ...................................................................... 27 4.5 Health ............................................................................................................ 27

5 Adaptation in biodiversity conservation .............................................................. 28 5.1 Autonomous adaptation................................................................................. 28 5.2 Planned adaptation ........................................................................................ 29

5.2.1 Ecosystems ............................................................................................. 29 5.2.2 Species ................................................................................................... 35

5.2.3 Genes...................................................................................................... 38 6 Synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation .............................. 39 7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 40

1

1 Executive Summary

The impacts of climate change are already being felt, and will continue to increase in

magnitude. Countries are now starting to develop and implement adaptation policies

to cope with these impacts. Adaptation strategies tend to focus on technological,

structural, social, and economic developments, and the linkages between biodiversity

and adaptation are often overlooked. Nevertheless, biodiversity is linked to climate

change adaptation in three main ways; biodiversity can play a role in societal

adaptation, biodiversity can be impacted by societal adaptation strategies, and

biodiversity conservation is a sector that requires adaptation strategies in its own

right.

Scientific literature on the role of biodiversity in climate change adaptation is

scarce, but there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that ecosystem-based

adaptation can be a cost-effective adaptation strategy across the major adaptation

sectors. Adaptation strategies that aim to enhance the resilience of ecosystems to

enable the continued provision of goods and services can be particularly important for

poor people, who are often directly dependent upon their natural resources and have

little access to technical measures.

Coastal adaptation: Coastal defences have traditionally relied upon „hard defence‟

structures such as sea walls. However, evidence suggests that resilient coastal

ecosystems, including mangroves, coral reefs, sand dunes and salt marsh can play an

effective role in coastal protection. In addition, coastal ecosystems provide resources

such as fish, and allow more flexibility to adapt to uncertain changes. They can also

act as a buffer against extreme events. However, coastal ecosystems will not reduce

impacts in all cases. Integration of „hard defence‟ measures with proper land use

planning and ecosystem management is increasingly being promoted.

Adaptation in the water sector: Natural freshwater systems provide vital water

regulation services, and can play a role in adaptation to water scarcity, as well as

flooding. Actions to reduce degradation of watersheds, through reduced deforestation,

afforestation, and soil conservation can lower vulnerability to drought; and the

maintenance and restoration of the water regulating services of wetlands is important

for flood control. As with coastal defence, the need for integration of improved

watershed management with technological measures is receiving increasing attention,

though not yet at the policy level.

Adaptation in agriculture: Diverse agricultural systems, incorporating new varieties

of crops and crop diversification, are likely to be essential in maintaining food

production under changing temperature and water conditions. Such agricultural

systems are clearly dependent upon a range of crops, for which the maintenance of

agrobiodiversity is critical. „Good practice‟ natural resource management, including

water and soil conservation is also likely to play a major role in agricultural

adaptation, particularly in drylands. Agroforestry, intercropping food crops with tree

stands, has been identified as a promising option to improve resilience of agricultural

systems to climate change.

2

Forest adaptation: Discussion of forests in relation to climate change tends to focus

on their role in mitigation. However, forests provide a range of regulating services

whilst providing important resources to those who depend on forests for their

livelihoods, and can be particularly important during extreme events. Maintaining

intact natural forests and selecting appropriate mixes of species for afforestation is

likely to enhance their resilience to climate change, supporting their contribution to

both mitigation and societal adaptation.

Adaptation in the urban environment: The incorporation of more green spaces,

including the planting of trees, can play a role in urban adaptation by reducing heat

stress and improving drainage during times of flood. Despite this, biodiversity is often

overlooked in urban design and adaptation plans.

Health: Although the importance of biodiversity for health is recognised, few links

have yet been made to the role of biodiversity in adaptation to the health impacts of

climate change. This is an area for further research.

The contribution that biodiversity can make to societal adaptation will differ

according to the circumstances, and in many cases technological solutions will be

required. Analysis of the costs and benefits of adaptation options is uneven, and

further research is required in this area. However, available evidence suggests that

integrated management strategies, incorporating ecosystem management into broader

cross-sectoral adaptation policies as a complement to structural and technological

measures, are likely to result in more sustainable adaptation. This will require

significant institutional support, which currently appears to be lacking.

The impact of adaptation strategies on biodiversity has been shown to be negative

in many circumstances, particularly in the case of „hard defences‟ constructed to

prevent coastal and inland flooding. This can result in maladaptation in the long term

if it removes natural flood regulation properties of coastal and freshwater ecosystems,

for example. Conversely, adaptation strategies that incorporate natural resource

management, such as improved agricultural practice, can be beneficial for

biodiversity. The information available in this area is limited, as few adaptation

strategies have been implemented.

There is an urgent need for adaptation in the biodiversity conservation sector, as

the impacts of climate change on natural ecosystems are already being observed and

are likely to increase in magnitude. This is required not just to achieve the

conservation of biodiversity for its own sake, but to maintain the role of biodiversity

in contributing to societal adaptation. The conservation sector is only recently

beginning to develop adaptation measures, but strategies such as improved protected

area design, maintaining habitat connectivity in the wider landscape, and reducing

other anthropogenic pressures are likely to increase the resilience of biodiversity to

climate change. Increasing the resilience of ecosystems to climate change also

supports their role in climate change mitigation.

Ultimately, a broad perspective is required, focusing on how ecosystems can be

managed and conserved in order to deliver ecosystem services in a changing climate,

within the context of overall adaptation policy. There needs to be greater

consideration of synergies and trade-offs in adaptation policy and planning, including

3

improved understanding of the underpinning role of biodiversity, to avoid

maladaptation and develop cost-effective responses to the impacts of climate change.

4

2 Introduction

2.1 Adaptation

The impacts of climate change are already being felt, and will continue to increase in

magnitude. They include rising sea levels, increased drought and flooding, and

impacts on agriculture. Until recently, efforts have been focused on the development

of appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the scale of these impacts. However, the

need to develop adaptation strategies to cope with the impacts to which we are already

committed, or to which we are likely to be committed in the future, is becoming

increasingly recognised (Goklany 2007; Pielke et al. 2007; Stern 2007).

According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), adaptation can be defined

as the „adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected

climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial

opportunities’ (IPCC 2007). Adaptation strategies aim to reduce the vulnerability or

enhance resilience in response to these „actual or expected changes‟ and associated

extreme events, and will be required in both human and ecological systems (Adger et

al. 2007). Currently, adaptive capacity is uneven both across sectors and within

societies (Adger et al. 2007). The most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change

are likely to be those in Least Developed Countries (LDCS), and Small Island

Developing States (SIDS).

Adaptation is receiving increasing attention under the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Nairobi Work Programme on

impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change was established under the

Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) in 2005. The five-

year programme has the aim of assisting all Parties to the convention, especially

developing countries, LDCs, and SIDS on matters regarding improvement of

understanding and assessment of impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation; and to make

informed decision on practical adaptation actions and measures (UNFCCC 2008).

Adaptation was also identified as one of the five key building blocks for a

strengthened future response to climate change in the Bali Action Plan. Many LDCs

have developed National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPAs), which identify

priority adaptation projects required to cope with the immediate impacts of climate

change.

Although there are now a number of funds for adaptation, they are widely considered

to be inadequate. Estimates of the sums needed to fund adaptation range from $10-86

billion per year. These estimates are orders of magnitude higher than the sums

generated under the existing funds (Ayers & Huq 2008; Harmeling & Bals 2008).

2.2 Biodiversity and adaptation

There is some recognition of the importance of ecosystems to adaptation in the text of

the UNFCCC. Article 2 states that the ultimate objective of the convention is to

5

stabilize greenhouse gases „at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic

interference in the climate system’. It then asserts that „Such a level should be

achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to

climate change‟.

Moreover, Article 4 includes as a commitment of all Parties that they shall:

„Cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change; develop and

elaborate appropriate and integrated plans for coastal zone management, water

resources and agriculture, and for the protection and rehabilitation of areas,

particularly in Africa, affected by drought and desertification, as well as floods’

Consideration of the underlying ecosystems is crucial to successful adaptation in all

these sectors. More specifically, biodiversity is intimately connected to climate

change adaptation in at least three ways:

1. Components of biodiversity can play a significant role in strategies for societal

adaptation to climate change, and are particularly important for reducing the

vulnerability of the poor and disadvantaged. This review will consider the role of

biodiversity in the coastal, water resource, agricultural, forest, urban, and health

adaptation sectors, including adaptation to extreme events.

2. Many of the strategies adopted for societal adaptation, especially those dependent

on engineering and technology, can have significant negative impacts on

biodiversity, and these will differ between sectors.

3. The components of biodiversity are themselves subject to considerable impacts

from climate change, as established by Kapos et al. (2008) in the background

documents for the first meeting of the Second AHTEG on Biodiversity and

Climate Change. There is, therefore, a need for adaptation strategies within the

conservation sector, both to conserve biodiversity for its own sake, and to maintain

the role of biodiversity in societal adaptation.

This report reviews the literature published since the IPCC 4AR on the linkages

between biodiversity and climate adaptation, focusing on these three topics in turn.

This structure reflects the divisions in the literature on biodiversity and adaptation,

and provides a useful way of organizing this literature review. Nevertheless, there is a

risk that it can obscure some of the underlying connections between the three topics.

This point will be taken up in the conclusion. Keyword searches in ISI Web of

Knowledge and Google Scholar were carried out to obtain a broad coverage of the

available literature. As the peer-reviewed literature in this area is limited, grey

literature was also used

6

3 The role of biodiversity in societal adaptation to climate change

Strategies for societal adaptation to climate change are generally based on engineering

structures, technological developments, and economic diversification. However, the

evidence that adaptation strategies based on natural resources can play an important

and cost effective role as part of integrated adaptation strategies is growing (ProAct

Network 2008; Abramovitz et al 2006). This evidence is grounded in the known links

between ecosystems and human livelihoods (Abramovitz et al 2006).

Ecosystems provide a number of services that play a significant role in maintaining

human well-being. These include provisioning services, such as food, fuel and fibre,

regulating services, such as carbon storage and water regulation, supporting services,

and cultural services (MA 2005a). A recent study has estimated that welfare losses

due to the loss of ecosystem services could be equivalent to 7% of annual

consumption by 2050 (European Commission 2008). Although the detailed linkages

between biodiversity and ecosystem services are not always well understood, it is

widely recognised that maintaining biodiversity promotes the continued provision of

services under environmental change (Carpenter, Bennett & Peterson 2006; World

Bank 2008; Palumbi et al. 2009; Worm et al. 2006).

The poor are often the most directly dependent on ecosystem services. It has been

estimated that three quarters of the world‟s poorest people (those living on less than

$2 per day) depend on the environment for a significant part of their livelihoods (WRI

2008). In Africa, for example, more than 70% of the population earn their living in

agriculture, and most of the remaining population depend on exploitation of other

natural resources through hunting, fishing, and use of forest products (Enow &

Muhongo 2007).

It is for this reason that adaptation strategies that enhance the resilience of

ecosystems, ensuring the continued provision of goods and services, can be

particularly important for poor people (Adger, Arnell & Tompkins 2005a; AIACC

2007; Ravindranath 2007; Reid & Huq 2005; Thomas & Twyman 2005). Poor people

with low adaptive capacity are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, which

will contribute to the loss of their natural resource base (Eriksen et al. 2007).

Ecosystems, particularly those that have already been degraded are likely to be

severely impacted by climate change (Fischlin et al. 2007). A recent study has

projected that annual losses to the Namibian economy due to the impacts of climate

change on natural resources alone could be up to 5% of GDP, and that this will affect

the poorest members of society (Reid et al. 2008). It has been suggested that

environmental degradation is lowering the resilience of people to climate change in

the Niger Delta (Uyigue & Agho 2007), and in developing countries globally (Huq &

Ayers 2007). Thus, the need to build resilience in ecosystems to maintain their

productivity is often stressed in the development literature as a necessary part of

adaptation strategies, particularly for vulnerable communities (Corfee-Morlot et al.

2003; Nkem et al. 2007; Reid et al. 2008; Tompkins & Adger 2004b; Tompkins &

Adger 2004a; WRI 2008).

7

Similarly, in Small Island Developing States (SIDS), many people depend upon

biodiversity resources that are already under stress (CICERO & UNEP/GRID-

Arendal 2008). Adaptation strategies that involve the sustainable management and use

of resources are likely to enable SIDS to become more resilient to climate change

(Cherian 2007).

In addition, natural resource management strategies are more accessible to local

communities than strategies based on infrastructure and engineering (Hedger &

Cacouris 2008; Reid & Huq 2005), and community-based adaptation projects often

involve the management of natural resources (Huq et al. 2005). Rehabilitating natural

resources such as farm and grazing lands, forest, watersheds, and fisheries have

become a central focus on a project-level scale across Asia and Africa (AIACC 2007).

Biodiversity is also included in many National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPAs),

which identify priority adaptation requirements in Least Developed Countries

(LDCs), as these requirements are often linked to natural resource management (Shaw

2006). An analysis of the 30 NAPAs available in 2008 showed that 25 Parties

identified adaptation projects related to biodiversity, 8 of which were small island

developing states (SIDS) (Webbe 2008).

Although reflected on a project basis and in some NAPAs, the role of biodiversity in

adaptation has received little attention at the scale of national and international

adaptation policy (Kalame et al. 2009; Nkem et al. 2007). A small number of

countries do identify natural resource management related actions in their adaptation

plans (Webbe 2008), but it generally tends to be overlooked; particularly in

developing countries.. The remainder of Section 2 outlines the contribution that

biodiversity can make to societal adaptation across the various adaptation sectors.

3.1 Coastal adaptation

3.1.1 Coastal defence

Adaptation in the coastal sector has received the most attention in the literature to

date. This is largely due to the fact that coastal societies and ecosystems are

particularly vulnerable to climate change, and impacts are already being felt. Even a

one meter rise in sea level, the lowest expected this century, could displace nearly six

million people across South Asia and 37 million people along the river deltas of East

Asia (Dasgupta et al. 2007).

Protection strategies for sea level rise range from „hard‟ defences, such as sea walls,

dykes, and tidal barriers to „soft‟ defences such as natural resource management

(Adger et al. 2007). In most developed countries, „hard‟ defences are preferred,

particularly in built-up areas (Kirshen, Knee & Ruth 2008). These defences have often

been built with little regard for the integrated nature of the coastal ecosystem, and can

require costly repairs and upgrades (Duxbury & Dickinson 2007). The cost of

infrastructure to prevent against storm surges and floods in the UK alone has been

estimated at $18 – 56 million annually (Mani 2007). More recent strategies include

„managed realignment‟ or „coastal retreat‟, whereby infrastructure is moved inland to

8

reduce the risk of impacts and allow the development of inter-tidal ecosystems, or

„accommodation‟ where planning restrictions prevent the development of

infrastructure on floodplains or at certain distances from the shore (Glick, Staudt &

Stein 2009; ProAct Network 2008). Managed realignment of hard protection

structures due to increased erosion rates, and high costs of maintenance is being

trialled in the UK (ProAct Network 2008). Options for adaptation in the coastal zone

are shown below in Table 1.

Table 1. Major adaptation strategies for the coastal zone (UNFCCC 2006)

Protection Retreat Accommodation

Hard structures: dykes,

sea walls, tidal barriers

Establishing set-back

zones

Early warning systems,

hazard insurance

Soft structures: dunes

or wetland restoration,

beach nourishment

Relocating threatened

buildings and hard

protection structures

Land use planning

(building and

agricultural practice )

Indigenous Options:

afforestation

Phasing out development

in exposed areas

Improved drainage and

desalination

Biodiversity can play a role in a number of coastal defence strategies. Soft

engineering solutions incorporate activities such as planting of marsh vegetation in

the intertidal zone and wetland restoration (Morris 2007). Coastal wetlands can absorb

wave energy and reduce erosion through increased drag on water motion, a reduction

in the direct wind effect, and directly absorbing wave energy (Day, Jr. et al. 2007).

The accretion of sediments also maintain shallow depths that decrease wave strength

(Koch et al. 2009).

Biodiversity based adaptation measures are receiving increasing attention in

developing countries, particularly SIDS, where adaptive capacity is low and local

communities depend upon their natural resource base (Cherian 2007). Mangroves, for

example, can provide physical protection to coastal communities whilst providing

provisioning goods and services such as productive fisheries; offering both physical

protection and economic gain to the most vulnerable people (Adger et al. 2005a;

McKinnon & Webber 2005; Reid & Huq 2005). It has been estimated, that the value

of mangroves for coastal defence in Malaysia is US$ 300,000 per km based on the

cost of hard engineering that would otherwise be required (ProAct Network 2008).

Nearly 12,000 hectares of mangroves planted in Vietnam at a cost of US$1.1 million,

saved an estimated $7.3 million per year in dyke maintenance whilst providing

protection against a typhoon that devastated neighbouring areas (Reid & Huq 2005).

Recent research has suggested that natural systems can actually be more effective at

protecting coasts from erosion and flooding than hard defence structures (Costanza et

al. 2008; Hanak & Moreno 2008), although this will not be the case in all situations,

and modelling of societal responses to sea level rise in different areas rarely produces

the same optimal response (Tol et al. 2006). Risk-based analyses have shown that

generally it is advantageous to use expensive structural protection in highly developed

areas, and „softer‟ approaches such as land management in less developed areas

(Hulme 2005; Kirshen et al. 2008). In addition to being more cost-effective, strategies

focused on resource management tend to provide co-benefits such as biodiversity

conservation, and allow for more flexibility to adapt to uncertain changes in the future

9

(Costanza et al. 2008; Kirshen et al. 2008; Koch et al. 2009; Luisetti, Turner &

Bateman 2008).

Although coastal vegetation has significant potential in climate change adaptation, it

requires a holistic management approach, with full participation from local authorities

and communities (Tanaka 2009). Currently, ecosystem management initiatives for

coastal protection tend to lack a scientific basis (Mascarenhas & Jayakumar 2008).

Different species of mangrove, marsh plants, and seagrass have different wave

attenuation capacities (Koch et al. 2009). In order to provide optimal coastal

protection, mangrove belts need to be maintained at a certain width and thickness and

planted vegetation needs to be given time to mature (ProAct Network 2008). The

conditions in which coastal vegetation will offer protection are also not entirely

known. There will be areas in which dunes play a better protective role, and others in

which mangroves are more suitable (Danielsen et al. 2005). For example, conversion

of coastal sand dunes to protective plantations might result in maladaptation as sand

dunes can provide better protection (Bhalla 2007).

Integrated management of coastal ecosystems is required because of the

interconnectivity of coastal systems. For example, mangrove protection against

hurricane damage extends to increasing resilience of coral reefs (Gilman et al. 2008;

Mumby & Hastings 2008; ProAct Network 2008; Grimsditch 2006). Waves

approaching a coastal area travel across reefs and through seagrass beds before

reaching mangroves, and the wave attenuation is not provided by one ecosystem alone

(Koch et al. 2009). When planting vegetation for coastal defence, it is important to

include species with tolerance for flooding and broad ranges within the intertidal zone

(Morris 2007).

It is also important to reduce coastal ecosystem degradation. Many services provided

by coastal and marine ecosystems are in decline (Leslie & Mcleod 2007). Although

climate change could result in a 10-15% loss of mangrove, the current rate of

deforestation far exceeds this threat (Alongi 2008). This can reduce the resilience of

coastal vegetation to climate change, and remove their capacity to act as a physical

barrier (Gilman et al. 2008; ProAct Network 2008; Tornqvist & Meffert 2008),

increasing vulnerability of coastal communities to extreme events (Danielsen et al.

2005). Sand extraction of dunes for construction increases vulnerability to storm

surges (Sudmeier-Rieux 2006), and anthropogenic threats to reefs reduces their

protective and fish provisioning services (Adger et al. 2005b; Kunkel, Hallberg &

OPPENHEIMER 2006; Meadows & Brosnan 2008). For example, water flow may

actually be accelerated through channels of fragmented reefs (Cochard et al. 2008).

Environmental degradation can also reduce the potential for economic recovery due to

loss of traditional livelihoods (Adger et al. 2005b). However, most communities have

little experience of managing for resilience (Gibbs 2009), and the concept itself is not

fully understood (Gilman et al. 2008). Capacity building in this area is likely to be

required.

3.1.1.1 Integrated Coastal Zone Management

It is becoming increasingly recognised that integrated management of the entire

coastal zone is required. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is being

10

promoted due to the recognition that a combination of sustainable protective measures

is required for the coastal zone (Duxbury & Dickinson 2007). Where hard structures

are built without consideration for the impacts on buffering coastal ecosystems, they

can actually reduce the adaptation potential of the coast, a process known as

„maladaptation‟ (Glick et al. 2009). Mangroves, for example, respond to sea level rise

and coastal erosion by retreating inland (Alongi 2008), but may be significantly

impacted where there is reduced area to move landward (Alongi 2008; Gilman et al.

2008; Jagtap & Nagle 2007). Land use planning is therefore necessary to avoid this

„coastal squeeze‟ (Gilman et al. 2008). In Louisiana, the drainage of wetlands and

starvation of natural sediments from the construction of canals and levees contributed

to the land subsidence that lowered some areas below sea level (Glick et al. 2009).

Economic studies have suggested that considering integrated adaptation strategies can

be beneficial, both for ecosystems and society (Costanza et al. 2008; Sugiyama,

Nicholls & Vafeidis 2008). The management of coastal ecosystems can be combined

with hard defence strategies and land use planning (Jenkin 2005). For example, salt

marshes can protect landward sea defences whilst providing a habitat for rate plants

and migratory birds (Hulme 2005; Luisetti et al. 2008). This has also been recognized

in developed countries. In the Netherlands, flood prevention policy is shifting from

dykes to realignment and ecosystem restoration, due to the difficulties of continuous

dyke maintenance (Pasche et al. 2008; ProAct Network 2008). However, although

similar ICZM activities are also being explored in the UK (de la Vega-Leinert &

Nicholls 2008), coastal governance and the need to involve a variety of stakeholders

means that progress is slow (Milligan et al. 2009; Mcfadden 2008). There are also

tradeoffs to be made. Managed retreat often only occurs on low value land and can be

costly and difficult to implement, whereas accommodation through creation of new

floodplain habitats is subject to the choice that this land can be lost to the sea (Hulme

2005; Richards et al. 2008).

Much of the literature surrounding the role of ecosystems in coastal protection is

focused on reducing extreme event impacts, which will be discussed in section 3.1.3

3.1.2 Fisheries

In addition to coastal protection, mangroves, coral reefs, and other coastal ecosystems

play an important role in fisheries (FAO 2007; Glick et al. 2009). Recent studies in

the Gulf of Mexico have estimated that mangrove fish and crab species account for

32% of small-scale fisheries landings, and that coastal ecosystems contribute an

estimated 77% of the global ecosystem-services value calculated (Martinez et al.

2007). The resources provided by coral reefs are particularly important for SIDS

(Walling & Creary-Chevannes 2004). In a study in the Philippines, 90% of all fishers,

recognized the role of mangroves as a nursery site, in addition to their role in storm

protection (Walton et al. 2006).

The vulnerability of fisheries to climate change and the implications for adaptation

has not yet been considered on a large scale, but recent evidence suggests that impacts

could be significant (Coulthard 2008; Allison et al. 2009; Brander 2007). The

communities likely to be impacted most heavily include a number of less developed

countries, where the most vulnerable groups rely on fisheries for 27% of their protein

11

(Allison et al. 2009). In Bangladesh, a community wetland management programme

which protected wetlands from degradation has improved fish catches by an estimated

140% and improved resilience of both the wetland and the community to

environmental change. The success of this project led the government to include it in

the fisheries strategy to reduce the siltation caused by forest clearance, wetland

drainage and flood embankments (WRI 2008).

3.1.3 Reducing extreme event impacts

There is a growing wealth of literature linking disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies

with climate change adaptation. Although there is much uncertainty attached to the

role of climate change in increased severity and incidence of extreme events, an

increase in disasters such as flooding and hurricanes is predicted (Francisco 2008).

These disasters are likely to impact vulnerable areas such as Small Island Developing

States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), particularly in Asia. It has

been suggested that management of natural resources can contribute to disaster risk

reduction by reducing vulnerability to the event, and increasing adaptive capacity

after the event (Sudmeier-Rieux 2006; Francisco 2008). The role of coastal

ecosystems has received particular attention in this respect.

A number of studies carried out following coastal disasters such as tsunamis and

hurricanes have documented an important role for wetlands, mangroves and coral

reefs in coastal protection against extreme events and tropical storms (Danielsen et al.

2005; Granek & Ruttenberg 2007; IUCN 2008; Olwig et al. 2007; Perez-Maqueo,

Intralawan & Martinez 2007; Francisco 2008; Mattsson et al. 2009; UNEP-WCMC

2006). Although tsunamis are not related to climate change, they provide an evidence

base for the protective role against storm surges in general. Coastal ecosystems can

provide a buffer against the wave impacts and also decrease the strength of the waves.

Forest canopies in wetlands can diminish wind flow and reduce surface waves, whilst

shallow water vegetation can limit wave build-up (Day, Jr. et al. 2007).

A Rapid Environmental Assessment by IUCN following the tsunami of 2004 found a

clear correlation between damage of inland areas and human modifications to the

coastline, with mature sand dunes especially effective in protection (Bambaradeniya

et al. 2005). During Hurricane Katrina, levees fronted by extensive wetlands escaped

substantial damage, suggesting that a well managed combination of hard and soft

protection can play a role in climate change adaptation (Day, Jr. et al. 2007), and that

the re-establishment of protective habitats could be important even for built up areas

(Glick et al. 2009). Hydrological models and simulations have suggested that a 100m

wide mangrove forest belt can reduce wave flow by 90% (Alongi 2008), and that

coral reefs offer protection against tsunamis (Kunkel et al. 2006) to add weight to

observational reports. It has been estimated that coastal wetlands in the U.S. alone

provide $23.2 billion per year in hurricane protection (Costanza et al. 2008), and that

the coastal protection value of mangroves exceeds their direct use value by over 97%

(Sanford 2009).

Despite the wide range of anecdotal reports and modelling exercises, there remains

little empirical evidence that coastal ecosystems can protect against extreme events

(Feagin 2008; Granek & Ruttenberg 2007), leading some to question the validity of

12

diverting adaptation funds to coastal ecosystem management (Cochard et al. 2008).

Reports that areas with mangrove and tree shelterbelts were significantly less

damaged than other areas have been questioned due to the large number of caveats

inherent in the studies (hdouh-Guebas & Koedam 2006), whereas other studies have

found no such role for coastal ecosystems (Kerr, Baird & Campbell 2006).

Indeed, although a number of studies support the role of coastal ecosystems in coastal

storm protection, they note that it has limitations (Kerr & Baird 2007). The presence

of sand dunes, mangroves, and coral reefs made little impact in the epicentre of the

2004 tsunami, although they reduced the power of the smaller waves in Sri Lanka

(Adger et al. 2005b). Few studies take into account the variability between energy and

speed of waves (Cochard et al. 2008). Ecosystem services are not linear across space

and time. Wave attenuation may be higher in summer where biomass is highest for

example, or when the tide is low and it cannot be assumed that vegetation will

automatically provide coastal protection (Koch et al. 2009). Protection by vegetation

such as mangroves depends upon the stand size, density, species composition, and

structure, and degraded ecosystems are less likely to function as buffers (Cochard et

al. 2008; Koch et al. 2009; Tanaka 2009; Alongi 2008). A recent study using satellite

imagery and field measurements found that survival rate of mangroves during

extreme events increased with increasing stem diameter, but that the mangrove belt

was mostly destroyed following inundation at depths greater than 6m (Yanagisawa et

al. 2009).

It is important to recognise that ecosystems alone cannot reduce the impacts of

storms, and that a balance of social capital and built defences are also needed (Perez-

Maqueo et al. 2007). The limitations of ecosystems in coastal protection should be

recognised for coastal planning, as should the ways in which protection by

ecosystems can be enhanced (Tanaka 2009). This can be linked to the resilience of the

ecosystem to environmental change (Sudmeier-Rieux 2006), which has been

discussed in section 3.1.1.

3.2 Adaptation in the water sector

The impact on water resources is likely to be the major challenge posed by climate

change. In some regions, too little water will lead to droughts and desertification,

whereas in others too much water will lead to increased flooding (FAO 2007).

Desertification is considered to be one of the most threatening processes to

livelihoods of the poor (MA 2005b) with more than 300 million Africans living in

drought or drought-prone areas; a number likely to be increased in Africa and on a

global scale due to climate change (IPCC 2007). A new report projects that by 2030,

47% of the world population will be living in areas of high water stress, especially in

Africa, with 24 to 700 million people expected to be displaced because of water

scarcity (UNESCO 2009). Africa and Asia are expected to be the most impacted, with

adaptation costs in the sub-Saharan urban water sector estimated at between 10 and 20

per cent of current overseas development assistance to the region (Muller 2007).

Adaptation options for water shortage range from water use controls to the building of

reservoirs and diversion of rivers into drought prone areas (Obersteiner 2006).

Options for adaptation to flooding include structural defences similar to those used in

13

coastal protection, watershed management, and flood planning. The major adaptation

strategies for water related impacts are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Major adaptation strategies in the water sector (Obersteiner 2006)

Water stress Flooding

Desalination Structural protection

Ground-water pumping Watershed management

Water transfer Land use planning

Removal of invasive vegetation Flood forecasting

Improved water efficiency

(including demand-side

management)

Relocation of populations

Soil moisture conservation Insurance

Biodiversity can play a role in adaptation strategies to both drought and floods

through watershed, wetland, forest, and agricultural management (Kundzewicz et al.

2008; Berry et al. 2008). Maintenance or restoration of forest and wetlands, for

example, can reduce run-off in times of flood and also increase water retention during

droughts (Krysanova et al. 2008).

3.2.1 Adaptation to water stress

Reduced vulnerability to drought, particularly in dryland regions, requires improved

soil and water management (Falkenmark & Rockstrom 2008; Stringer 2008). The

regulation of water flows in dryland regions have been strongly linked to the

proportion of land covered by forest, grassland, and wetland, and maintaining

vegetation cover can assist in adaptation to drought (Falkenmark & Rockstrom 2008).

Upland watersheds play a vital role in water regulation. Run-off from mountainous

areas in SIDS is often the major supply of water (Mata & Budhooram 2007), and in

the Phillipines, watersheds are a critical part of the national economy (Lasco et al.

2008). Often these watersheds are degraded, and their rehabilitation is one adaptation

option (MacKinnon 2007). Planting trees on slope fields, mini-terracing for soil and

moisture conservation, and improved pasture management can also complement

actions such as building of small-scale infrastructure in water resources management

(World Bank 2008). Natural resource management has been included in the NAPA of

the Niger, where water stress is the major issue, and the reduction of pressure on

freshwater resources is receiving attention in Brazil where the use of pesticides has

impacted water quality in many areas (Hedger & Cacouris 2008). Soil erosion

measures such as conservation tillage can be coupled with rain water harvesting and

are activities that can be undertaken by communities (Paavola 2008). Water

management is cross-sectoral, and is particularly relevant to agricultural adaptation. It

will be discussed in more detail in section 3.3.

3.2.2 Adaptation to flooding

In addition to water provisioning services, watersheds can reduce flooding and

sedimentation whilst improving water quality downstream. A study of upland forests

14

in a watershed in Madagascar has estimated their flood protection value at $126,700,

and peat bog in Sri Lanka that buffers floodwaters from rivers have an estimated

annual value of more than $5 million (Emerton & Bos 2004; Sudmeier-Rieux 2006).

In the Morogoro region of Tanzania, reduced river flow and increased flooding has

been attributed to deforestation in the mountains, and it has been suggested that

effective governance of soil, forests and water resources are needed as adaptation

measures, along with improved social capacity (Paavola 2008). Ecuador and

Argentina have integrated forests and wetlands into their „living with floods‟

strategies (World Bank 2008), and reforestation is recognised as an important option

for adaptation in the watersheds of the Phillipines (Lasco et al. 2008). Viet Nam

includes measures such as integrated management of watersheds in its disaster

reduction planning, along with forest management, and soil and water conservation

(Sudmeier-Rieux 2006). Large-scale afforestation projects in China have been carried

out with the aim of reducing flooding and increasing water conservation, and

countries of Central America are collaborating to protect watersheds and forest

(Abramovitz et al 2006).

Ecosystem management is also an effective adaptation strategy at the river basin scale

and can be an alternative to the development of dams, which have a high

environmental impact. (Mata & Budhooram 2007). In developed countries, cost

effective flood reduction strategies that allow re-growth of vegetation alongside rivers

and establish vegetation buffers along streams, combined with the reduced

development of infrastructure, are being promoted in some areas (Nelson et al. 2008).

Some evidence that this can be an effective strategy has been provided in a modelling

scenario exercise, which suggested that a combination of wetland restoration and hard

defences provides optimal flood protection (Berry et al. 2008). Riparian floodplains

can also help to reduce the levels of water pollution following extreme events (CCSP

2008). In Europe, the conservation or restoration of river floodplains has been

included in a number of flood reduction strategies (Zaunberger, Agne & Miko 2009),

although there are many new river management plans that do not include such

measures (Krysanova et al. 2008).

3.2.3 Integrated Watershed Management

Water resource adaptation options need to be able to function under uncertain future

climate change, but many adaptation measures do not sufficiently account for this

(Krysanova et al. 2008). The building of dams and large-scale irrigation systems for

example cannot completely protect against floods and can also damage the adaptation

capacity of other sectors, an example of maladaptation (Palmer et al. 2008; Fraiture et

al. 2007). Technical measures such as desalination, pumping of deep groundwater,

and water treatment are very resource intensive (Krysanova et al. 2008). Increasingly

it is becoming recognised that water management requires an integrated approach,

through „integrated watershed management‟ which includes natural resource

management along with social measures and infrastructure development (Galaz 2007;

IUCN 2008; Kundzewicz et al. 2008; Bates et al. 2008). In principle, restoring and

protecting freshwater habitats and watersheds and managing natural floodplains is a

key element of such an approach (Glick et al. 2009). Reduction of pressure on

freshwater resources would be beneficial regardless of the scale of the future impact

(Kundzewicz et al. 2008), whereas activities such as river regulation, wetland

15

drainage, intensive agriculture, and deforestation degrade freshwater habitats and

lower adaptive capacity (Krysanova et al. 2008). The Government of India has

initiated an Integrated Watershed Management Programme to restore degraded

regions through rehabilitating and maintaining the natural resource base, which

involves soil moisture conservation measures such as contours, afforestation,

vegetating drainage lines, and engineering structures to collect rainwater (Bhandari,

Suruchi & Ulka 2007).

These strategies recognize wetlands and river basins as an integral part of the

hydrological regime (Harrison et al. 2008). It has been widely suggested that an

ecosystem approach including wetland and floodplain management and restoration

should not be viewed as an alternative to technological approaches such as reservoirs

and irrigation systems, but as a complement to them (Mata & Budhooram 2007).

However, there appears to be a lag between our understanding of interconnected

freshwater resources and adaptation strategies implemented by policy makers (Galaz

2007).

Watershed management should be planned according to local conditions. For

example, planting of some tree species could have negative impacts on water flow in

some areas (Bhandari et al. 2007). In South Africa, „Working for Water‟ programmes

have been initiated to remove invasive tree species from water catchments where

water-thirsty species have reduced the annual river flow by approximately 7% in

South Africa (Mukheibir 2008). Similar impacts have been seen in China, where the

monoculture tree species chosen for plantations were not suitable for the area

(McVicar et al. 2007).

3.3 Adaptation in agriculture

The production of food crops is perhaps the most climate-dependent economic

activity. Climate change is already affecting agriculture in developing countries

negatively, and this situation is likely to worsen (IPCC 2007), with significant impacts

on crop yields and the productivity of grazing lands and livestock expected, through

changes in temperature, precipitation, water availability, salinity, and the abundance

of pollinators , pests and diseases (Rosenzweig & Tubiello 2007). Impacts will not be

uniform, but will vary across regions and require a number of different adaptation

strategies (Berry et al. 2008). Agricultural production is the main economic activity

for rural communities of vulnerable regions such as Africa and India (Chatterjee,

Chatterjee & Das 2005; Osbahr et al. 2008). In some countries in Africa, yields from

rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 per cent by 2020 (IPCC 2007). In

Central and South Asia, crop yields could fall by as much as 30 per cent by 2050 as a

result of climate change; India alone could lose 18 per cent of its rain-fed cereal

production (Lobell et al. 2008). For agriculture in the world‟s drylands, the challenges

are especially large due to predicted changes in hydrological cycles characterised by

both increased droughts and increased risks of flooding (Falkenmark & Rockstrom

2008). Depending on the region and the available resources, options for adaptation

range from relatively inexpensive changes, such as shifting planting dates or

switching to an existing crop variety, to much more costly measures including the

development of new crop varieties, increasing chemical and other inputs and

irrigation systems (Rosenzweig & Tubiello 2007). Broadly speaking, the options for

16

adaptation in agriculture include: (i) changes in the locations of cultivation (i.e.

opening new areas for cultivation); (ii) changes to the crops cultivated, including

substitution by new crops, new varieties and crop diversification; and (iii) changes to

agricultural practice, including irrigation and soil management regimes and the use of

agricultural inputs. Biodiversity plays an especially strong role in supporting the latter

two.

3.3.1 Changes in location of cultivation

Climate change will lower the suitability of some areas for agriculture, and open up

new suitable zones, particularly in northern latitudes Areas of cultivation could shift

geographically, following shifting climatic zonations (Rosenzweig & Tubiello 2007),

and livestock may be moved to new zones (Berry et al. 2008).

3.3.2 Changes to crops cultivated

Within a given region, different crops are subject to different degrees of impact from

current and anticipated climate changes (Lobell et al. 2008). One major avenue for

adaptation is the substitution of different crops more suited to changing and new

conditions. Rice, maize, and wheat contribute roughly half of the calories currently

consumed by the world's poor (Lobell et al. 2008), the remainder of the world‟s food

supply comes from a wide variety of other crops including sorghum, millet, sweet

potato, cassava, groundnuts, sugar cane and many different beans. Adaptation in

agriculture will include the adoption of many of these crops in areas and farms where

they were not previously grown. For example, in a vulnerable community in India,

growing new crops together with higher value crops for commercial sale was among

the adaptation measures already being adopted to help cope with drought (Chatterjee

et al. 2005). The most common adaptation strategies used by farmers in South Africa

and Ethiopia include the use of different crop varieties, (Bryan et al. 2009). Adopting

new crops and varieties has also been an important aspect of recovery from extreme

events in Zimbabwe (Chigwada 2005). Where salinisation is a problem due to rising

sea levels or excessive water extraction, the introduction of salt tolerant crops and

varieties can help to ensure continued agricultural production (Galvani 2007).

Further, the use of currently under-utilised crops can help to maintain diverse and

more stable agro-ecosystems, (Bowe 2007). The use of indigenous and locally

adapted plants, can enhance the capacity of communities to cope with changing

climatic conditions by providing alternative food and income sources, that may be

better suited to changing conditions (FAO 2007; Eriksen 2005). For example, the

bambara groundnut, an ancient grain legume grown, cooked, processed and traded

mainly by subsistence women farmers in sub-Saharan Africa has great potential to

provide continued production in the face of growing climate variability (Azam-Ali

2007).

Developing climate-tolerant crop and livestock varieties and genotypes, such as those

tolerant to drought, heat stress, disease, and saline conditions is another avenue for

increasing the adaptive capacity of farmers (Aggarwal 2008; Kesavan &

Swaminathan 2006; Ortiz et al. 2008). Such selection will often depend on locally

17

used varieties and crop wild relatives as sources of characteristics that contribute to

drought or flood tolerance or the ability to withstand highly variable climate (Bailey-

Serres & Voesenek 2008). However, changes in cultivars and livestock races can

bring other climate-related risks. For example, adapting winter cereal production by

using longer-maturing cultivars is dependent on there being enough precipitation over

the extended growing season to sustain grain filling (Rosenzweig & Tubiello 2007).

Increasingly, new crop varieties are being developed through genetic modification

that can incorporate individual traits and does not depend on a long breeding

programme. There is a danger that these costly (and in some cases environmentally

risky approaches) may target environmental tolerances that are not appropriate to

eventual real climatic changes in large areas of the world.

In addition to substituting new crops, races and cultivars with those currently in use,

adaptation may involve crop diversification. Although empirical evidence is lacking,

it is likely that farming practices can be more easily adapted to cope with changes in

water availability or temperature if a larger number of crop varieties are available

(Hedger & Cacouris 2008; Weltzien et al. 2006; Kouressy et al. 2008; Reidsma &

Ewert 2008; Bowe 2007; Smale 2005; Reid, Simms & Johnson 2007; Thomas et al.

2007). Crop diversification and mixed cropping is currently being used in Brazil and

Ghana, to increase the chances that at least one crop will survive and produce a

harvest (Leavy & Lussier 2008). At its most successful, diversification also provides

increased income by ensuring that there are several different income streams

available. (Leavy & Lussier 2008). Research on agro-ecosystems in China has

suggested that diversification of agriculture is a promising poverty reduction strategy

but requires efficient use of resources (Hengsdijk et al. 2007).

The adoption of new crops and development of new varieties and cultivars, whether

through breeding or genetic modification, are clearly dependent on the availability of

a range of crops; the maintenance of agrobiodiversity is therefore critical to such

adaptation (Kotschi 2007; Fowler 2008). Ensuring the continued survival of crop

wild relatives that provide additional genetic diversity for breeding and the

development of new varieties is also crucial (Jarvis, Lane & Hijmans 2008).

3.3.3 Changes in agricultural practice

Changing many different aspects of farming practice, ranging from planting and

harvest dates to water and soil management practices, will also be an important part of

most agricultural adaptation strategies.

In many cases alterations to planting and or harvest dates are helpful in dealing with

climatic changes (Rosenzweig & Tubiello 2007; Bryan et al. 2009). Early sowing has

been found to be helpful in some cases (e.g. (Luo et al. 2009), but it can be

problematic in drier environments. Double cropping may even be possible in regions

where the length of the growing season is increased (Meza, Silva & Vigil 2008), but it

is likely to increase the use of pesticides and fertilizers. The success of changes to

cropping dates is also dependent on the availability of pollinators and therefore on

changes to biodiversity within the surrounding landscape.

18

Globally, agriculture consumes more than 3000 litres of water per person per day to

meet food demand (Molden 2007). 60% of all agricultural production comes from

rainfed land, while 40% comes from irrigated areas (Fraiture et al. 2007). Changing

precipitation regimes will likely alter this balance. Managing water supplies and

demands will be vital to adaptation of agriculture worldwide, and especially in

drylands (Falkenmark & Rockstrom 2008). Development of new irrigation systems is

costly, improved capture storage and use of rainwater is less so (Shiferaw, Okello &

Reddy 2007). Water conservation is particularly important in India as 68% of the

agriculture is rainfed, making watershed development through soil and water

conservation vital for adaptation to climate change (Bhandari et al. 2007; Chatterjee

et al. 2005). The use of water-efficient and or perennial crops can reduce demand for

water (Bell et al., 2008) (Reid et al. 2007), and inexpensive measures to enhance

water productivity of agricultural systems through soil and watershed conservation

can improve rural incomes and diversify livelihood streams whilst increasing carbon

sequestration (Molden 2007; Noble 2007; Castillo et al. 2007; Hartmann, Hediger &

Peter 2007). In Senegal, where farmers have had to adapt to successive droughts and a

drying climate, planting dense perennial hedges as windbreaks helps to improve the

microclimate for crop growth (Seck, bou Mamouda & Wade 2005).

In other areas, drainage or dyke building may be necessary to reduce flooding

probabilities and the impacts of extreme events, and to make lowland areas usable for

agriculture (Olesen 2006), but such measures can be costly and have negative impacts

on biodiversity. Less expensive measures include raising beds and floating gardens,

both of which are being adopted in flood-prone areas such as Bangladesh (Leavy &

Lussier 2008).

Soil conservation and enhancement are also an important part of adaptation in

agriculture. This can include structural methods such as terracing and stone bunding

(Shiferaw et al. 2007), the use of chemical or organic fertilizers, changes to tillage

practices, and agroforestry techniques. On the whole, good practice agriculture such

as crop rotation, contour tiling, minimum tillage, the use of vegetation buffer strips,

and agroforestry can all play major roles in adaptation (Berry et al. 2008).

Conservation agriculture, which involves minimizing soil disturbance and

maintaining cover through plantings or mulches, and organic agriculture (Muller

2009; Huang 2008) are promising options for adaptation in farming communities

because they increase soil carbon and water retention, decreasing vulnerability to

extreme weather events (WRI 2008; Lal et al. 2007; FAO 2007; Thomas et al. 2007).

They also reduce the need for nutrient inputs and use of heavy machinery. In

drylands, agricultural practices such as the use of shadow crops can enhance

resilience by providing protection against extreme rainfall, and increasing infiltration

into the soil (Blanco 2004). Vegetation litter, the use of nutrient enriching plants,

reduced use of fertiliser, crop diversity, and maintenance of forest can also be utilised

as adaptation strategies (Blanco 2004). Sand and dust storms can be reduced through

the use of forest shelterbelts and improved cohesion of soil particles through practices

such as mulching (Sivakumar 2005). Replanting of indigenous trees can reduce soil

and wind erosion, as can ridging and mulching (Abramovitz et al 2006). Farms using

agroecological practices such as soil conservation have been found to be more

resilient to hurricanes (Reid & Swiderska 2008).

19

Agroforestry, intercropping food crops with tree stands can improve biophysical

resilience and promote income diversification (Verchot, V et al. 2005) and is one of

the most promising options for helping communities adapt and become resilient to the

impacts of climate change. It provides permanent cover leading to soil conservation

and microclimatic buffering, opportunities for diversification of the agricultural

systems, and improved efficiency of water resources (Rao et al. 2007), and is

especially important to smallholder farmers with significant biodiversity benefits

(Verchot, V et al. 2007). Agroforestry and many other forms of agricultural good

practice including reduced tillage, were originally designed as „„best practice‟‟

management strategies, aimed at enhancing the long-term stability and resilience of

cropping systems in the face of climate variability or of increased cultivation intensity

(Rosenzweig & Tubiello 2007). They also serve an important role in climate change

mitigation by enhancing carbon stocks within the agricultural landscape (Kandji et al.

2006). Further they both increase and depend on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

The viability of the many different options available for adaptation in agriculture is

dependent on the availability of financial human and natural resources and on the

willingness of farmers to consider the options (Reidsma 2007; Brondizio & Moran

2008). To date, there have been few examples of policy level decisions to promote

adaptation in the agriculture sector (Ziervogel et al. 2008), and one of the challenges

for adaptation researchers is to understand how best to address the information needs

of policy-makers and report and communicate agronomic research results in a manner

that will assist the development of food systems adapted to climate change (Gregory

et al. 2008; Bryan et al. 2009). It has been suggested that adaptation strategies should

invest in sustainable agriculture, promoting soil and water conservation and

preserving biodiversity (Leavy & Lussier 2008), and should be part of a strategic

governmental response (Bryan et al. 2009).

3.4 Forest adaptation

Much of the discussion related to forests and climate change has focused on

mitigation, rather than adaptation (Guariguata et al. 2008). Although there is a wealth

of literature on the ecosystem services provided by forest and the links to livelihoods,

little is explicitly related to climate change adaptation. Much of the literature that does

exist is related to management of temperate forest (Locatelli et al. 2008). However,

the role of forests in societal adaptation is becoming increasingly recognised (Eliasch

2008), and has led to the development of initiatives such as the Congo Basin Forest

and Climate Change Adaptation (COFCCA) project. Solidifying the links between

forests and adaptation will be important to reduce damaging management practices

that could lead to maladaptation in the longer term (Nkem et al. 2007).

Forests can contribute to adaptation in three main ways; through structural defence

against wind and soil erosion, through water regulation, and through the provision of

timber and non-timber forest products (NTFPs) (Ogden & Innes 2007; Innes &

Hickey 2006; UN 2008; WRI 2008; McEvoy, Lindley & Handley 2006; Paavola

2008; Eriksen et al. 2006), as has been discussed in previous sections. On a local

scale, forests can provide shade and reduce exposure to heat; for example a study in

Kenya found that improved microclimate and catchment properties of a hilltop area

were closely linked to good biodiversity status of the forest (Eriksen et al. 2006).

20

Conversely, deforestation is a driving force for loss of ecosystem services and land

degradation (Cangir & Boyraz 2008). Forest dwellers and those that rely on forest

resources are often the poorest members of society and have low adaptive capacity

(FAO 2007; Ravindranath 2007). Where access to NTFPs become marginalized,

vulnerability of the poorest people increases (Eriksen, Brown & Kelly 2005; Paavola

2008). Both natural and plantation forests can provide „safety nets‟ during periods of

food shortage, and can provide an important contribution to food security (Kalame et

al. 2009; Nkem et al. 2007). Community involvement in afforestation projects, for

example, can diversify incomes and improve social capacity, reducing the

vulnerability to climate change impacts (Guariguata et al. 2008; Spittlehouse 2005).

Forests can be particularly important during extreme events. In addition to the

provision of „safety nets‟, it has been suggested that forest cover can reduce landslide

erosion by a factor of 4-5 compared with sites that lack substantial tree root strength,

and reduce flooding (ProAct Network 2008; ISDR 2004). In a study of North

Pakistan, it was estimated that 56% of all landslides were due to land degradation

from deforestation and grazing, and that protective forests would be a cost effective

action to reduce disaster risk (Sudmeier-Rieux et al. 2007).

In the Amazon, forest has a major role in the regional hydrological regime (Correia,

Alvala & Manzi 2008). Forest loss could push some subregions into a permanently

drier climate regime, increasing vulnerability of societies to drought conditions

(Malhi et al. 2008; Betts 2007). Recent research has suggested that there is the

potential for large scale die-back of the Amazon rain forest through a combination of

degradation and drought (Nepstad et al. 2008; Phillips et al. 2008), although it is

thought that in-tact forests will be more resilient to climate change impacts (Bush et

al. 2008; Malhi et al. 2008; Gullison et al. 2007).

Forest management and conservation practices may help to decrease the vulnerability

of those who depend on forest services for their livelihoods, while at the same time

maintaining the mitigation capacity of forests (Guariguata et al. 2008; IUCN 2008).

Adaptation in the forest sector (for both natural and plantation forest) can either

enhance resistance and resilience of existing forests to climate change, or facilitate

adaptation to new conditions (Locatelli et al. 2008). Other adaptation options include

diversification of the forest economy and the forecasting of potential pest impacts

(Ogden & Innes 2007; La Porta et al. 2008).

Climate change is rarely factored into forest planning (Nitschke & Innes 2008),

possibly due to the uncertainties surrounding the vulnerability of forests to climate

change (Chapin et al. 2007; Millar, Stephenson & Stephens 2007). A mixture of

adaptation measures will be required, depending upon whether the goal is to manage

for a specific ecosystem service, or for resilience in general (Locatelli et al. 2008).

Although a number of adaptation measures have been proposed (Locatelli et al. 2008;

Guariguata et al. 2008; Millar et al. 2007; Noss 2001; Ogden & Innes 2007), most of

the management practices suggested to date have been generic and based on

temperate case studies (Kalame et al. 2009).

21

3.4.1 Natural forest

Evidence suggests that intact forests, particularly old growth forests, will be more

resilient to climate change (Betts, Malhi & Roberts 2008; Malhi et al. 2008).

Strategies aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD)

could therefore play a significant role in adaptation through maintenance of

biodiversity and ecosystems services such as water cycling (Betts 2007; Betts,

Sanderson & Woodward 2008; Malhi et al. 2008; Nepstad et al. 2008). Indeed, it has

been suggested that REDD could be the most effective strategy for both adaptation

and mitigation, as it is likely to reduce anthropogenic threats to forest (Berry et al.

2008). However, badly designed REDD strategies could increase vulnerability of

local communities if they are denied access to important forest resources (Locatelli et

al. 2008)

Many of the management activities required to enhance resilience in natural forest are

similar to those required to maintain carbon stocks, such as reduced impact logging,

forest conservation and sustainable forest management (Guariguata et al. 2008).

However, there will also be trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation. For

example, maintenance of the genetic diversity of forests is likely to play a large role in

forest adaptation to climate change (WRI 2008; Guariguata et al. 2008; Kalame et al.

2009; Sevrin 2008), but is unlikely to be considered in mitigation strategies. Other

strategies for forest adaptation can include the maintenance of different forest types

across environmental gradients, expansion of the protected area network, the

protection of climatic refuges, the reduction of fragmentation, and the maintenance of

natural fire regimes (Glick et al. 2009; Locatelli et al. 2008; Noss 2001). These

conservation strategies will be discussed in more detail in section 5.

3.4.2 Plantation forest

There is significant potential to adapt plantation forests to future conditions. Genetic

diversity is likely to be important, and can be obtained through selecting a mix of

species and range of age structures, including those that are likely to be adaptable to

future climate changes (Guariguata et al. 2008; Berry et al. 2008). This will be

beneficial for biodiversity in addition to improving adaptive capacity. As forest

species are long-lived, adaptation measures undertaken now need to be planned

according to likely future conditions and be flexible to change (Millar et al. 2007;

Ravindranath 2007).

Although afforestation can stabilise soils in suitable areas and provide nutrient and

water flow benefits, this needs to be considered in the context of current land use and

can involve tradeoffs, particularly with water usage (Berry et al. 2008; Ravindranath

2007). Selecting appropriate species will include a consideration of the nutrient and

water requirements of an area. An example can be given of the largest monoculture

plantation in the American tropics in Venezuela, which suffered a large scale tree

mortality as a result of water stress during the 1997 El Nino (Guariguata et al. 2008).

This is another example of a potential trade-off between adaptation and mitigation.

Forest plantations for carbon sequestration have generally been established using

genetically uniform stock with high growth rates, but low adaptive capacity, which

will ultimately diminish their capacity in mitigation (Innes & Hickey 2006).

22

Afforestation in unsuitable areas, using unsuitable crops and monocultures can have

significant impacts on biodiversity, soil erosion, nutrient cycling, and water regulation

(Campbell et al. 2008).

The central role that forests can play in local adaptation has not been translated into

broader adaptation policy (Kalame et al. 2009; UN 2008; Nkem et al. 2007). This is

true both on national scales and under the UNFCCC (Locatelli et al. 2008). Forests

are widely seen as carbon sinks for sequestration payments (Kalame et al. 2009), and

there are significant socio-economic and political barriers to mainstreaming

adaptation into sectoral forest policies (Kalame et al. 2009). Although forestry is

generally not a priority in adaptation policy (Locatelli et al. 2008), a number of the

NAPAs prepared by LDCs do have forest projects within their adaptation priorities

(Guariguata et al. 2008). Developing countries that have identified forest adaptation

priorities need further guidance to enhance the adaptive capacity of their forests

(Guariguata et al. 2008).

3.5 Adaptation in the urban environment

The role of biodiversity in the urban environment is less intuitive than for other

sectors. However, the urban environment is a large adaptation sector, and should not

be overlooked. The majority of the global population live in cities and will suffer

impacts of climate change, mainly through overheating (with higher temperatures

expected in cities than in rural areas), flash floods, and extreme weather events (Smith

& Levermore 2008). „Structural‟ adaptation measures in the urban environment can

include improved building design (for increased ventilation, shading etc), increased

use of air conditioning, and improved drainage through more permeable surfaces

(McEvoy et al. 2006). Adaptation measures related to sea level rise in coastal areas

and river basins have been discussed in section 3.1.

Biodiversity can play a role in urban planning through expanse of green areas for

cooling, improved use of natural areas for drainage and flood reduction, and urban

tree planting for structural integrity and removal of pollutants (McEvoy et al. 2006;

Berry et al. 2008). „Urban greening‟ can improve the microclimate by modifying heat

absorption (Smith & Levermore 2008), whereas paving over areas covered by

vegetation and water reduces heat loss and increases vulnerability to flooding (Grimm

et al. 2008). Increasing „blue space‟ (e.g. lakes and canals) is also recommended for

cooling and reduced risk of flooding (Grimm et al. 2008).

Clearly, structural measures are required for adaptation in the urban environment.

However, a recent analysis of the built environment in Boston has suggested that a

combination of both structural and „green‟ adaptation measures is the optimal strategy

to reduce the negative effects of climate change in the built environment, and that

considering integration with land use management and coordination amongst

institutions is a necessary response to climate change (Berry et al. 2008; Kirshen,

Ruth & Anderson 2008). Despite this, „green space‟ is often overlooked in urban

design and adaptation plans (McEvoy et al. 2006). A recognition of the ecosystem

services and economic benefits that can be provided through incorporating ecology

into urban design will be important for future sustainable city design (Grimm et al.

2008).

23

3.6 Health

Climate change is likely to have major impacts on health through heat exposure,

extreme weather events, air pollution, malnutrition, reduced water quality and

availability, water borne diseases, and spread of disease vectors (Kjellstrom &

Weaver 2009; WHO 2008).

Although there is a growing body of literature supporting the importance of

biodiversity for health (Chivian & Bernstein 2008), few links have yet been made to

the role of biodiversity in adaptation to health impacts. Productive ecosystems are

necessary for food production, freshwater production, fuel, waste management, and

waste management (Corvalan, Hales & McMichael 2005) and the role of biodiversity

in adaptation to extreme event impacts, heat exposure, water stress and food

production have already been discussed. It has been reported that approximately one

quarter of the global disease burden is due to modifiable environmental factors and

that 42% of incidences of malaria are associated with policies and practices related to

land use, deforestation, water resource management (Pruss-Ustun & Corvalan 2006).

This would appear to be an area that requires increasing attention in the future.

3.7 Integration across sectors

This report has focused on separate adaptation sectors, as this is how the literature is

generally organised. However, the need for integrated adaptation strategies across

sectors to avoid maladaptation is becoming increasingly recognised (AIACC 2007).

For example, there is a high level of interdependence between agriculture and water

resources, where good watershed management can act synergistically to improve

agricultural practice, whereas bad management can have a negative impact and vice

versa (Lasco et al. 2008). Natural resource management in particular tends to run

across a number of sectors.

The literature suggests that although integration of adaptation across sectors is

preferable, including the integration of environmental measures, this will require

significant institutional capacity (Agrawal 2008; Zaunberger et al. 2009). Integrating

natural resource management into adaptation in particular requires considerable

institutional support, and this is currently lacking (AIACC 2006; Eriksen et al. 2006;

Kalame et al. 2009; Locatelli et al. 2008; Tompkins & Adger 2004a). Linkages are

rarely made between adaptation policy and issues of governance and land tenure,

which are key in developing adaptive capacity to manage resources (Agrawal 2008).

One case study in the Philippines suggested that although there were significant

synergies between adaptation options in the forest, agriculture, and water sectors,

there were trade-offs involved at the institutional level due to tight budget constraints

(Lasco et al. 2008).

Although such discussions are beyond the scope of this review, institutional networks

to support the inclusion of biodiversity and the effective participation of local

communities in adaptation strategies are likely to be a key determinant of the

integration of biodiversity into adaptation (Adger et al. 2005a; Barbier 2006; Bryan et

al. 2009; FAO 2007; Resurreccion, Sajor & Fajber 2008; Matthews & Quesne 2008).

24

4 Adaptation strategies and their impact on biodiversity

There is very little literature surrounding the impacts of adaptation strategies on

biodiversity, as few adaptation measures have actually been implemented (Paterson et

al. 2008; Adger et al. 2007). However, potential impacts can be identified through our

knowledge of likely adaptation measures and the environmental impacts of past

management practices. The Netherlands, England and France have begun developing

policy for climate change adaptation, in which the requirement to perform

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Strategic Environmental Assessments

(SEAs) on adaptation projects have been recommended, as well as the need to

consider ecosystem-based planning (Wilson & Piper 2008). This is based on the

recognition that considering biodiversity in the design and operation of infrastructure

projects can reduce environmental costs and increase the sustainability of the project

(Quintero 2007). The environmental impacts of non-biodiversity based adaptation

measures will be discussed in this section. When considering the impacts of

adaptation strategies on biodiversity it is important to consider tradeoffs, such as the

implications for local incomes and adaptive capacity.

4.1 Coastal defence

4.1.1 Protection

Most of the literature available on this topic is related to the „hard‟ structures

constructed for defence against coastal erosion and sea level rise. Coastal protection,

particularly in developed countries, has traditionally been in the form of dykes,

seawalls, and tidal barriers, and construction in this area is likely to continue (IPCC

2007). It was recognised in the IPCC 4AR that structures such as seawalls and dams

can alter sediment deposition, prevent inland migration of vegetation in response to

changing sea levels, and impact upon salt marshes (IPCC 2007). This impact of hard

defence structures is well documented, and there is evidence that this „coastal

squeeze‟ and altered sediment deposition is threatening mangrove ecosystems

(Gilman et al. 2008; Gilman, Ellison & Coleman 2007; Jagtap & Nagle 2007), in

addition to tidal flats, saltmarshes, and dunes (Glick et al. 2009).

Few studies have considered the impact of hard defences on coastal ecology. Recent

research has shown that beaches protected by hard defences suffer reduced

availability of habitat and macroinvertebrates due to the loss of upper intertidal zones,

which has led to reduced species richness and abundance of shorebirds and seabirds

(Dugan et al. 2008). One area that requires increasing attention is the impact of

coastal structures on fish ecology. A recent study has suggested that species

assemblages differ between natural and artificial reef structures, and that it is unclear

whether artificial structures will be effective fish habitat (Clynick, Chapman &

Underwood 2008). This will be particularly important in areas where defence

structures impact upon mangrove and coral reef ecosystems that provide nursery

grounds for fish. Sea wall construction has also been noted to have impacts on plant

diversity at the upper borders of salt marshes (Bozek & Burdick 2005).

25

Habitat can also be created by engineered structures such as dykes and seawalls

(Berry et al. 2008). A number of studies in Sydney Harbour, Australia, have found

that intertidal molluscs (key species in rocky shore ecology) do occur on seawalls but

with differing levels of abundance and diversity that has uncertain implications for

intertidal biodiversity (Moreira 2006; Blockley 2007; Chapman 2006). There is also

some evidence that habitats protected by hard coastal defence structures support

invasive species, such as non-indigenous macroalgae (Vaselli, Bulleri & Benedetti-

Cecchi 2008; Bulleri, Abbiati & Airoldi 2006).

It is not just „hard‟ protection measures that can impact upon biodiversity. Beach

nourishment is a widely used „soft protection‟ approach to deal with coastal erosion.

Although there is much uncertainty, it is through that beach nourishment can have

significant biodiversity impacts through the dredging of habitats for sand material,

which can bury shallow reefs, reduce fish habitats, reduce invertebrate densities, and

impact upon turtle nesting (Bilodeau & Bourgeois 2004; Colosio, Abbiati & Airoldi

2007; Fanini et al. 2009; Glick et al. 2009; Peterson & Bishop 2005; Speybroeck et

al. 2006; Speybroeck et al. 2007). However, it has been suggested that with proper

planning beach nourishment would have a lower impact than the use of hard defences

(Jones, Gladstone & Hacking 2007), and that a better understanding of the ecological

impacts is required (Jones et al. 2008).

There can clearly be significant environmental impacts from hard defence

construction. However, trade-offs need to be considered where hard protection is

necessary. It has been estimated that hard protection in Germany reduces $300 billion

of damage (Sterr 2008). Similarly, although flood control schemes in Bangladesh

such as sluice gates reduce fish production and species richness, they can be

beneficial for agriculture (Halls et al. 2008).

4.1.2 Managed realignment and accommodation

The strategies of managed realignment and accommodation, which can involve the

movement of infrastructure inland and improved land use planning (Ellis 2008), can

be beneficial for biodiversity as they are often combined with activities such as

wetland restoration (Berry et al. 2008). Moving coastal defences inland can create

new intertidal habitat (Berry et al. 2008; Hardaway et al. 2002), and can provide

breeding and feeding grounds for water birds (Crowther 2007). It can also facilitate

the inland migration of mangroves (Gilman et al. 2008), and can reduce coastal

squeeze for wetland habitats more generally (Berry et al. 2008). Accommodation

reduces building on coastal areas and can involve habitat restoration.

However, one study has suggested that whilst the realignment of embankments can

reduce the requirement to constantly upgrade flood defences, there are clear

incompatibilities between flood defence and habitat restoration objectives that need to

be evaluated (French 2008). Movement of structures inland can facilitate the

transition of salt marsh, the habitat thought to be most at risk from coastal defences, to

mud flats (Gardiner et al. 2007). At realignment sites in the UK, biological

monitoring has been poor, and although new habitats have been created they lack the

biodiversity found in surrounding natural habitats (ATKINSON 2004). In moving

26

infrastructure there is also the potential for adverse impacts on biodiversity at the

relocation sites (Berry et al. 2008), and careful land use planning is clearly required.

Accommodating floods is likely to be necessary in some areas such as SIDS, and will

lead to large-scale migration of environmental refugees, with unquantified

environmental impacts.

4.2 Water management

River flood defence systems are similar to those used in coastal defence. River

breakwaters, dykes, dams, levees, and floodgates are all large structures used to

prevent flooding around rivers, and can have significant environmental impacts. In

addition to loss of natural vegetation along river banks, these structures can reduce

connectivity between lakes, rivers, and riparian zones, and reduce sediment flows;

contributing to the loss of wetlands (Huang et al. 2007; ProAct Network 2008). This

can actually increase flooding and reduce water quality downstream (Abramovitz et al

2006). They can also act as a barrier to the movement of aquatic species such as fish

(Berry et al. 2008; Krysanova et al. 2008; Reid & Swiderska 2008).

In addition to defence from flooding, a number of engineering adaptation options are

being employed to reduce water shortages, ranging from construction of dams and

reservoirs to engineering to improve river flow, and diversion of rivers. There is little

information available on this topic, but large infrastructure projects can have major

environmental impacts, particularly diversion of rivers which requires extensive

landscape planning (Larsen, Girvetz & Fremier 2007). Large-scale dams can cause

deforestation, loss of habitats, impact on aquatic biodiversity, and reduce the services

provided by downstream flood plains and wetlands (Mata & Budhooram 2007).

Removing river vegetation to improve river flow can negatively impact biodiversity

by disconnecting wetlands from water sources (Berry et al. 2008).

4.3 Agricultural practice

Many of the adaptation practices discussed for agriculture such as development of

perennial wheat varieties, mixed cropping, agroforestry, and organic farming are all

likely to be beneficial to biodiversity. This is because soil, water, and nutrient

conservation are all vital for adaptation. However, as discussed in a review of

agricultural mitigation strategies (Campbell et al. 2008), „worst case‟ management

practices will always have the potential to impact biodiversity (Berry et al. 2008), a

review of which is beyond the scope of this report. Impacts will depend on local

circumstances and conditions.

There are a number of specific adaptation strategies for agriculture that are likely to

impact upon biodiversity. Draining wetlands to increase agricultural production

during flooding, the use of dykes, and increases in irrigated agriculture can all have

impacts to biodiversity through loss of habitat, soil erosion and eutrophication (Olesen

2006), as can increased use of pesticide to control increased pest outbreaks. These

actions are also likely to have a negative impact on adaptation options in other sectors

(Berry et al. 2008). The replacement of crop systems with monoculture crops selected

27

for specific traits such as drought resistance could increase soil erosion and pesticide

use whilst also lowering resilience to climate change (Abramovitz et al 2006).

Similarly, the use of genetically modified crops could have as yet unquantified

environmental impacts, with risks of invasiveness and reductions in genetic fitness.

However, these crops offer great potential for adaptation and trade-offs may be

required (Berry et al. 2008).

Intensified agriculture, whilst providing gains in the short-term, can degrade natural

resources and lead to maladaptation in the long term, particularly for the most

vulnerable groups (Paavola 2008). This highlights the need for integrated policy

development across sectors (Berry et al. 2006).

4.4 Urban environment adaptation

Many of the strategies proposed in urban adaptation, including the increase of „green‟

and „blue‟ space, and urban tree planting (as discussed in section 3.5) will be

beneficial to biodiversity (Berry et al. 2008; McEvoy et al. 2006). However, man-

made streams and canals will not be substitutes for the loss of natural systems (Grimm

et al. 2008), and where there is migration from rural areas due to climate change

impacts, urbanisation will impact on biodiversity through habitat fragmentation and

increased waste production (Grimm et al. 2008).

4.5 Health

There is very little information available on the biodiversity impacts of adaptation to

the health impacts of climate change. However, the increased spread of mosquitoes

could be controlled by draining wetland breeding sites and introducing fish species to

control mosquito larvae. This would likely have negative impacts on biodiversity, as

would control through the use of chemicals (Berry et al. 2008).

28

5 Adaptation in biodiversity conservation

Intact and resilient ecosystems can play a role in climate change adaptation, in many

cases providing cost-effective options to reduce vulnerability to climate change

impacts (see above). The range of current and potential impacts of climate change on

biodiversity (Kapos et al. 2008) means that adaptation strategies are needed in the

biodiversity conservation sector to address and minimise these impacts. Such

strategies are needed not only to help achieve conservation goals, but also to ensure

that biodiversity can continue to contribute to societal adaptation to climate change

and to climate change mitigation.

The IPCC 4AR (Fischlin et al. 2007) outlined a number of potential adaptation

strategies to reduce climate impacts on ecosystems, including the reduction of

anthropogenic pressures, development of appropriate protected area networks,

landscape management, controlled fire management, habitat restoration, captive

breeding and assisted migration. A limited number of subsequent studies have

identified possible adaptation strategies and frameworks for adaptation to maintain

biological diversity and the capacity of species and ecosystems to accommodate and

adapt to climate change (Berry et al. 2008; CCSP 2008; Gayton 2008; Glick et al.

2009; Heinz 2008; Huntley 2007; Mitchell et al. 2007; Ptato 2008). These include the

protection of key ecosystem features or areas likely to act as „refuges from climate

change‟, maintaining representation and replication of species and ecosystems, and

the restoration of damaged ecosystems (CCSP 2008). Nearly all of these strategies

have been developed in and for developed countries in temperate regions; very little

work has as yet addressed specifically strategies for adaptation in biodiversity

conservation in developing and tropical countries. Recent research on adaptation to

climate change in biodiversity conservation is reviewed here, organised into

autonomous and planned adaptation.

5.1 Autonomous adaptation

The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC (Article 2; UNFCCC 1992) is to “achieve

stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations [...] at a level that would prevent

dangerous anthropogenic interference [...] within a timeframe that allows ecosystems

to adapt naturally to climate change”. Current conservation practices, generally

aimed at maintaining species diversity, can facilitate the variation that would allow

ecosystems to „adapt naturally‟ to environmental change (Berry et al. 2008). Indeed,

there is some evidence that species have the capacity to adapt (e.g. Skelly et al. 2007),

as can been seen by range shifts and phenological changes as responses to past

climate change (Kapos et al. 2008). The full extent to which species will be able to

adapt to climate change is largely unknown (Visser 2008), but there are likely limits

to natural adaptation, particularly taking into account the scale of projected climate

change.

Species may be able to adapt autonomously to climate change by i) dispersing to

suitable habitats, ii) changing their phenotype without a change in genotype via

phenotypic plasticity, or iii) adapting by genetic change over generations

(evolutionary response). The former two may occur rapidly, and have been observed

29

as responses to recent climate change (Kapos et al. 2008). However, the main concern

is whether species will be able to adapt fast enough to keep up with their changing

environment with major biodiversity loss (Visser 2008). Some species will be more

able to adapt than others, depending on generation times, ability to disperse, and

dependency on other species (e.g. pollinators, hosts for parasites, symbionts) (Baker

et al. 2004; Best 2007). Potential further constraints to evolutionary responses to

climate change include time lag between change and response, and erosion of genetic

variation (Skelly et al. 2007). It is widely accepted that many species and ecosystems

will not be able to adapt naturally to climate change under the timescales predicted,

and that planned adaptation responses will be required.

5.2 Planned adaptation

Conservation management in the context of climate change faces several challenges,

including resolving the tension between urgency of action (climate change is already

having measurable impacts on biodiversity (Kapos et al. 2008)) and uncertainty

about:

(i) the nature and magnitude of climate change itself in any given location

(ii) the likely responses of species and ecosystems

(iii) the degree to which and ways in which responses will affect each other

(iv) the likely effect of management on responses

There is still relatively little concrete scientific evidence on the effectiveness of

different management strategies in relation to climate change, so much adaptation

work is still based on ecological reasoning, rather than on extensive research and case

studies (Heller & Zavaleta 2009). In the face of these uncertainties, there is a need for

proactive management strategies that can quickly be adapted to new circumstances

and changing conservation priorities (Lawler et al. 2009; Heinz 2008). These will

require institutional coordination, incorporation of climate change scenarios into

planning, and efforts to address multiple threats simultaneously (Heller & Zavaleta

2009).

5.2.1 Ecosystems

Planning conservation action with full consideration of climate change (and its

associated uncertainties) could help to reduce the vulnerability of entire ecosystems

(Ravindranath 2007). Species responses will ultimately determine the ability of

ecosystems to adjust and persist under changed climates (Gayton 2008); changes in

ecosystems will in turn promote further changes in species abundances, distributions

and interactions, with the possible breakdown of traditional species relationships, such

as pollinator/plant and predator/prey interactions (Backlund, Janetos & Schimel

2008). It has been suggested that ecosystems and communities themselves should not

be the focus of conservation actions to adapt to climate change because differential

responses among component species will mean certain changes in their composition

and identities (Huntley 2007). However, the importance of maintaining ecosystem

resilience (Kareiva et al. 2007) and its relationship to maintaining adequate extent and

diversity of habitat to facilitate species adaptation have repeatedly been emphasized

30

(Harley & Hodgson 2008; Hopkins et al. 2007; Huntley 2007; Mitchell et al. 2007).

Therefore, many conservation interventions address management at the ecosystem

scale, and aim at the continued existence of ecosystems and the provision of the

services they provide.

Among the key needs that have been identified as driving conservation actions in the

context of adaptation to climate change are:

the need to maintain adequate populations of species and sufficiently large

areas of ecosystems to ensure their resilience and ability to continue to

maintain biodiversity and provide other ecosystem services

the need to ensure functional connectivity between populations and habitats so

that species are able to shift their distributions in response to climate change

the need to reduce other stresses on ecosystems and species

Adaptation to climate change in conservation management at the ecosystem scale,

which aims to address these needs, therefore falls into three broad categories:

1. Changes in the extent and design of protected area systems

2. Changes in their management

3. Management of the wider landscape, including efforts to ensure functional

connectivity

5.2.1.1 Protected Areas Systems

Protected areas have long been used as an important tool to secure sites that are

perceived as important in biodiversity conservation (Williams et al. 2005; Lee & Jetz

2008) and to reduce the pressures that affect the ecosystems and species within them.

To the extent that they are effective at reducing pressures other than those arising

from climate change and that they include areas of high quality habitat, protected

areas are potentially important tools for limiting the impacts of climate change on

biodiversity (Heller & Zavaleta 2009; Hannah 2008). Extending and/or strengthening

protected area networks is frequently emphasized as one of the fundamental options

for adaptation to climate change in the conservation sector (Killeen & Solorzano

2008; MacKinnon 2008; Ravindranath 2007; Malhi et al. 2008), and is emphasised in

a number of proposed adaptation frameworks (Heinz 2008; Mitchell et al. 2007;

CCSP 2008; Mcclanahan et al. 2008).

However, current protected areas were established to conserve species and

ecosystems in a stable climate; at best they were designed to conserve particular

components of biodiversity as they were distributed at the time of the initial

assessment and planning (Lemieux & Scott 2005; Huntley 2007), and at worst they

were located in areas where conflicting demands for land were minimal (Mackey et

al. 2008). As species ranges shift in response to climate change, and ecosystem

composition changes as a result, existing protected areas may play a limited role in

facilitating biodiversity adaptation to climate change (Hannah 2008; Mackey et al.

2008; Rahel, Bierwagen & Taniguchi 2008; Von Maltitz et al. 2006; Heller &

Zavaleta 2009). For example, vegetation-modeling projects that 37-48 percent of

Canada's protected areas could experience a change in terrestrial biome type under

doubled atmospheric carbon-dioxide conditions (Lemieux & Scott 2005). Similarly,

31

bioclimatic envelope models project a decline in Natura 2000 sites of habitat suitable

to support many of the species they currently protect (Vos et al. 2008). The first

quantitative study of the exposure of the global protected area network to climate

change (Lee & Jetz 2008) has suggested that similar patterns are likely to hold true at

global scale.

Therefore, considerable effort will need to be devoted to expanding and redesigning

protected areas systems to ensure that they include sufficient area to accommodate

management practices that both facilitate change and maintain large populations of

species of concern (Huntley 2007). Additional criteria and approaches for

consideration in re-designing protected areas systems include: (i) that they should

contain large enough core areas of ecosystems that will be relatively un-affected by

climate change, which can serve as refugia from changing conditions (Heinz 2008;

Mitchell et al. 2007; CCSP 2008; Mackey et al. 2008; Vos et al. 2008; Julius & West

2007); (ii) that they maximize representation of species of concern by including their

projected distributions under a changed climate, similar to system planning exercises

that are in use for current conditions (Araujo et al. 2004); (iii) that they should

include the greatest possible degree of habitat diversity, including as far as feasible a

full range of combinations of environmental conditions (Huntley 2007). It has also

been suggested that expanding reserves preferentially towards the poles and higher

altitudes might provide greater scope for adaptation to climate change (Li, Krauchi &

Gao 2006), but other authors have pointed out that in many regions, the options for

doing this are severely limited by the availability of space and resources (Huntley

2007). Further, design of protected areas systems should consider questions of

functional connectivity (see below), take advantage of „buffer zones‟ to increase the

effective size of reserves (Huntley 2007; Mitchell et al 2007), link habitats in new

suitable climate zones with existing relatively „climate-proof‟ refugia and include

diverse reserve management strategies (see below) (CCSP 2008; Vos et al. 2008;

Williams et al. 2005).

One recent study emphasising the importance of connectivity has suggested that

expanding protected area networks could delay loss of species representation under

climate change until the middle of the century (Hannah 2008). Unfortunately, there is

as yet little concrete evidence on how protected areas will perform in the face of

climate change (Heinz 2008). The problem is still greater in the case of the marine

protected areas (MPAs), where planning in the context of climate change is relatively

recent (McLeod et al. 2009). One study found that existing no-take marine protected

areas had no positive effect on the response of reef ecosystems to large-scale climate-

related disturbance (Graham et al. 2008). Although there are expectations that MPAs

will promote resilience and faster recovery from climate disturbance, site-specific

studies suggest this may not be the case; the effectiveness of such management needs

to be assessed across regional spatial scales (Graham et al. 2008). A further concern is

that reserve expansion is a very expensive option (Von Maltitz et al. 2006).

The likely effects of climate change on protected areas systems raises the question of

whether these networks should be regarded as fixed in space and time, or whether

provision should be made for movement of protected areas boundaries (Pressey et al.

2007; Hannah 2008). Precedents exist in the form of areas that currently receive

seasonal protection or where temporary restrictions on resource extraction (e.g.

fisheries) are imposed. Movable protection is particularly relevant for marine systems

32

where frontal zones and currents are likely to shift with climate change and where the

areas involved are potentially enormous (Hannah 2008). The existing concept of

„adaptable‟ protected areas, whereby conservation status could be applied or removed

as an area becomes more or less valuable as species habitat, could be relevant to

climate change (Berry et al. 2008). The management objectives of individual

protected areas and of whole systems will also need to be dynamic, changing as their

composition changes over time (Huntley 2007; Mitchell et al. 2007), and even the

concept of what constitutes a native species may need to be re-considered (Huntley

2007) . On the one hand, it may be appropriate to plan protected areas networks and

their management in terms of „potential native species‟ (Huntley 2007), and on the

other, the arrival of some species that are in no traditional sense introduced but are

better suited to new conditions than relict species from earlier conditions may lead to

interactions and impacts not unlike those associated with invasive alien species

(Dunlop & Brown 2008).

5.2.1.2 Protected Area Management

Ensuring the continued survival of ecosystems and species under changing climatic

conditions requires not only to adjustments to the extent and location of protected

areas, but also changes in the ways in which they are managed. It is important that

reserve management be as well informed as possible by an understanding of the likely

impacts of climate change (Mitchell et al. 2007; Ptato 2008; Hopkins et al. 2007;

Backlund et al. 2008; Killeen & Solorzano 2008; Brooker, Young & Watt 2007).

However, at least in some regions, reserve managers are not aware of likely climate

change impacts on their reserves (Schliep et al. 2008). Management changes will be

needed both to minimise the direct impacts of climate change on protected ecosystems

and to reduce other threats not directly linked to climate change.

Managing for reduced climate change impacts will include actions to preserve

ecosystem processes such as regeneration and succession, for example through

leaving large trees in place to maintain seed sources and favourable microclimates for

germination and establishment of new seedlings. In some cases it may also include

active restoration of degraded habitats, which may also help to increase the effective

size of the reserve (Heinz 2008; Julius & West 2007; Millar et al. 2007).

Reducing threats not linked to climate change also needs to be a key goal of protected

area management (Mitchell et al. 2007; Heinz 2008; Huntley 2007; Dunlop & Brown

2008; Fischlin et al. 2007) so that resilience of populations can be maximized and

ecosystem function can be maintained. Such threats include over-exploitation of

resources, eutrophication, wildfire and invasive alien species. Assessing and

improving the effectiveness of protected area management (Hockings, Stolton &

Dudley 2004) will be critical in dealing with these threats, as will integrating

protected area management with management of the wider landscape, which may

often play a major role in regulating the influence of such pressures (see below). The

incidence and intensity of wildfire and the impacts of invasive alien species are likely

to be further exacerbated by climate change (Dunlop & Brown 2008), so the

management objectives and practical management regimes of individual protected

areas will need to be dynamic, and to change as the area‟s composition changes over

time (Mitchell et al. 2007; Huntley 2007). Many authors emphasise the importance of

33

adaptive management in maintaining the effectiveness of reserves under changing

climatic conditions (Hopkins et al. 2007; Heinz 2008; Mitchell et al. 2007; Heller &

Zavaleta 2009).

The management of buffer zones around protected areas is seen as an important tool

for maintaining the integrity of protected areas and helping to ensure the continued

functionality of their ecosystems and the delivery of ecosystem services, such as

water yield regulation, that may be important in societal adaptation to climate change

(Mitchell et al. 2007; Huntley 2007; Heller & Zavaleta 2009). However, it is

important to recognise that their principle role is in increasing protected area

effectiveness rather than in contributing directly to adaptation to climate change

(Huntley 2007).

5.2.1.3 Functional connectivity

Numerous authors emphasise the importance of ensuring functional connectivity

among natural areas in facilitating movement of species and their adaptation to

climate change (Huntley 2007; Heinz 2008; Glick et al. 2009; Heller & Zavaleta

2009). For example, habitat connectivity has been identified as a particularly

important adaptation strategy for many forest species (Roy & de Blois 2008), and

could enhance the diversity and resilience of forest ecosystems to climate change

(Chapin et al. 2007; Millar et al. 2007). Upstream-downstream connectivity in rivers

and water course is also very important (Hopkins et al. 2007).

In many cases, improved connectivity is interpreted to mean the use of continuous

habitat corridors, to reduce habitat fragmentation (Matisziw & Murray 2009), both in

conjunction with protected areas and as part of broader habitat management (Hannah

2008). They are gaining increasing attention as a tool to facilitate the migration of

species, as they could allow species to track environmental changes (Roy & de Blois

2008; Glick et al. 2009; Rahel et al. 2008; Gayton 2008). However, it is difficult to

predict the utility of habitat corridors and the movements of individual species with

confidence (Heinz 2008); particularly as the nature and utility of corridors varies

greatly among species (Donald 2005; Donoghue 2008; Kettunen et al. 2009). In Costa

Rica, researchers found that different bird species had different preferences for

riverine forest corridors or hedgerows as avenues for movement among habitat

patches (Gillies & Clair 2008). A recent review of work on hedgerows found that

although some species use hedgerows as corridors, the benefits could not be

adequately assessed even at the small scale, and the role of corridors at the landscape

level for adaptation to climate change is even less understood (Davies & Pullin 2007).

Some authors caution against the justification of large-scale corridors on grounds of

climate change, since migration along corridors by standard dispersal mechanisms is

unlikely to keep pace with projected change for many species (Pearson & Dawson

2005).

In theory, to be functional corridors would need to span environmental gradients and

be a part of broader landscape planning to ensure that they are not threatened by

planned infrastructure (Killeen & Solorzano 2008). Many authors sound cautionary

notes about the feasibility of establishing such continuous habitat corridors in many

situations (Huntley 2007; Hopkins et al. 2007; Mitchell et al. 2007), and point to the

34

concept of stepping stones of natural and semi-natural areas and to management of the

wider landscape to increase its „permeability‟ to wildlife as being much more relevant

(Von Maltitz et al. 2006) and see below). There is also more general concern that,

increasing connectivity should not be seen as a substitute for the conservation of large

core areas of habitat (Hulme 2005).

5.2.1.3.1 Management of the wider landscape

In addition to improving protected areas and their management, and enhancing

connectivity among them, improved planning and management of the wider landscape

is agreed to be fundamental to adaptation strategies in biodiversity conservation

(Heinz 2008; Hopkins et al. 2007; Mackey et al. 2008; Wilson & Piper 2008; Heller

& Zavaleta 2009). One goal of such improvements is to make the matrix around

reserves more attractive to wildlife and therefore more permeable to species

movements, which is expected to facilitate their dispersal (Hopkins et al. 2007;

Mitchell et al. 2007; Chapman et al. 2003; Donald & Evans 2006). Many studies

recommend „softening‟ land use practice in the matrix around reserves (Heller &

Zavaleta 2009), but provide relatively little detail as to what such changes in practice

might entail. In general more diversity friendly practices might include lower intensity

farming with reducing agrochemical use (Berry et al. 2008), planting and restoration

of hedgerows, management and restoration of ditches and ponds and maintenance of

field margins and summer fallows (Donald & Evans 2006). In the tropics,

agroforestry has great potential to increase the permeability of agricultural landscape

(Villamore & Lasco 2008). In non-agricultural landscapes, reduced impact logging,

restoration and fire management will be important to maintain forest integrity and

increase landscape diversity (Guariguata et al. 2008). Management of upland streams

to enhance resilience of freshwater bodies will also be important (Conlan et al. 2007).

As for protected areas management, management of the wider landscape will need to

be done in adaptive fashion to enable it to take account of changes in climate and

other conditions (Von Maltitz et al. 2007; Hopkins et al. 2007; Heinz 2008). Agri-

environment schemes are one mechanism to promote such management, and they

have the advantage that they are already in use and are adjusted regularly to take

account of changing conditions and emerging needs.

These approaches provide multiple advantages in the context of climate change. They

increase the amount of habitat available to species that can actually use the matrix,

they increase the functional connectivity of landscapes for species that might need to

disperse across them, and they reduce many threats not directly linked to climate

change. Furthermore, in many cases they will increase the ability of the landscape to

provide ecosystem services such as water yield, timber provision, pollination and pest

control (Harris et al. 2006; Hannah 2008), and which could support societal

adaptation (see section 3). In many cases they will also enhance carbon storage,

providing a strong link between strategies for adaptation to climate change and those

for mitigating it.

35

5.2.2 Species

Adaptation strategies for species are crucial as they represent the building blocks of

ecosystems. Species responses will ultimately determine the ability of ecosystems to

adjust and persist under changed climates (Gayton 2008). There are multiple

adaptation intervention options available applicable to species. Excluding

evolutionary adaptations (discussed under autonomous species adaptation above),

species have been classified into four functional groups based on their response to

climate change (Von Maltitz et al. 2007), which each require different adaptation

strategies:

1. persisters are tolerant to the new climate of their current location (dealt with in

autonomous adaptation);

2. obligatory dispersers physically move with the changing climate to track

suitable climates, either by dispersing autonomously (see above) or requiring

assistance by human assisted translocation or dispersal into suitable habitats;

3. range expanders expand into new climatic envelopes that are not currently

available but to which the species are already well adapted; these species

require either no intervention or if they become invasive need to be controlled

4. no-hopers cannot do any of the above and will become prematurely extinct,

although may persist under unsuitable climates for some time and might be

rescued by ex situ conservation.

5.2.2.1 In-situ adaptation measures

In situ conservation measures for species have not been well researched in the context

of climate change adaptation, although in situ methods are a common conservation

strategy. The approach is to increase the resilience of existing ecosystems and species

in their current locations through site-based management, restoration and reduction of

pressures from sources other than climate change. Removing non-climate pressures

from species might give species more flexibility to evolve and adapt to climate

change. Fischlin et al. (2007) and Heinz (2008) note that this may be the only

practical large-scale adaptation policy for migratory species and marine systems.

Habitat restoration might provide food and habitat for species, e.g. blocking drainage

ditches on peatlands should raise water levels and reduce the vulnerability of cranefly

populations to increased temperatures and summer desiccation, and therefore benefit a

range of bird species (James Pearce Higgins pers.comm.). Food provision at feeding

stations (e.g. urban bird feeders) might give species flexibility to adapt to climate-

related pressures. Similarly, controlled fire management, reduction of fragmentation

and other habitat managements might positively affect some species. However, there

are many pressures affecting species and only a select few could be tackled with

limited resources. Further complex species interactions need to be carefully

considered before modifying habitats, providing food or changing fire regimes, to

avoid negative consequences on other species.

5.2.2.2 Human-aided translocation

Translocation, also referred to as assisted dispersal, migration, or colonization,

involves facilitating the movement of animals, plants and other organisms from sites

36

that are becoming unsuitable due to global climate change to other sites where

conditions are thought to be more favourable for their continued existence.

Translocation has been suggested as one option to facilitate the movement of species

into climatically suitable areas where the timescale or habitat fragmentation prevents

their ability to move naturally (Glick et al. 2009) and has been recommended in US

and UK adaptation strategies (Julius & West 2007; Mitchell et al. 2007).

Assisted migration can take a number of forms. Planting seedlings adapted to future

climates is recognised as a key adaptation strategy in the forestry sector (O'Neill et al.

2008). It is also argued that commercial plant nurseries are a form of assisted

migration as in Europe, 73% of native species investigated had commercial northern

range limits that exceeded their natural range limits, which could provide a „head

start‟ on migration (Veken et al. 2008). More extreme forms of assisted migration

involve the movement of species into areas that they had not previously inhabited, but

that will now be climatically suitable. Species with small populations, fragmented

ranges, low fecundity, or suffering declines due to introduced insects or diseases

could be candidates for facilitated migration (Aitken et al. 2008). Tested translocation

techniques are available for many vertebrate species and some invertebrates (for

examples, see Heinz 2008).

However, translocations may have undesirable consequences and opinion is divided

as to whether species should intentionally be moved out of their current range and into

another area (Mueller & Hellmann 2008; Veken et al. 2008). The most controversial

aspect is the potential impact on the ecosystem into which the species will be moved.

One risk with translocation is that the species could turn invasive. The Monterey Pine

which was confined to narrow sections of the California coast, was translocated to

South America and has spread to Chile, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa

(Fox 2007). By comparing past intracontinental and intercontinental invasions in the

United States, Mueller and Hellman (2008) show that the risk of translocation to

create novel invasive species is small, but translocated species that do become

invasive could have severe effects, particularly fish and crustacean intracontinental

invasions (Mueller & Hellmann 2008). Another issue is that translocations may fail,

potentially resulting in extinctions. The lack of detailed knowledge about the species

and limitations of existing models make it difficult to predict optimal future locations.

Different models might give different projections, e.g. comparing static vs. dynamic

models for carnivores in North America (Carroll 2007), climate vs. climate-habitat

models for birds in Spain (Suarez-Seoane, Osborne & Rosema 2004), and even

different populations within a species may respond differently (Tolimieri & Levin

2004). Beale et al. (2008) suggest that climate might not be determining species

distributions at all. The characteristics of both the species and the translocation sites

(see section on ecosystems above) need to be carefully considered (Hunter 2007), and

many studies fail to adequately research the ecological requirements, community

interactions, and genetic diversity of the species (McLachlan, Hellmann & Schwartz

2007).

In all such cases, the advantages and disadvantages of translocation need to be

carefully assessed and decisions should consider the best option to minimise species

loss under climate change as well as options to facilitate natural population spread,

along with an awareness of unintended consequences (McLachlan et al. 2007; Hoegh-

Guldberg et al. 2008). Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2008) have developed a decision

37

framework which can be used to outline potential actions for assisted colonization

under a suite of possible future climate scenarios.

5.2.2.3 Ex-situ measures: captive breeding and germplasm banks

Ex-situ conservation measures would initiate captive maintenance programs for

species that would otherwise become extinct due to climate change. They are not as

preferable as the above options, but might be the last resort for the “no hopers” (Von

Maltitz et al. 2006). Captive rearing, husbandry and propagation methods have been

described for many animals and plants; and zoos, aquaria, botanic gardens and seed

banks are well established. Studies have investigated the potential for captive

breeding of species and of gene banks, but few with explicit links to climate change.

For some species, captive breeding has been successful, e.g. Scimitar-horned oryx,

now considered extinct in the wild, persists in large numbers in captivity (Iyengar et

al. 2007). However for other species, such as Arctic marine mammals, captive

breeding as an adaptation option is largely unfeasible (Ragen, Huntington &

Hovelsrud 2008) and should be seen as a last resort for populations approaching

extinction, e.g. South African critically endangered riverine rabbit (Bunolagus

monticularis) (Hughes et al. 2008). Previous non-climate related reviews of captive

breeding have similarly suggested that this is a resource demanding and technically

difficult activity, mainly restricted to vertebrates, and should be a last resort (Ayyad

2003), particularly given the low rates of success reported for many species, and the

fact that it shifts attention away from in situ preservation of habitats (Hughes et al.

2008). Further, removal of all individuals into captivity would cause species to go

extinct in the wild, with potentially severe consequences for the species‟ native

ecosystem and their functioning. Another cause for concern is that captive breeding

can reduce genetic diversity (Berry et al. 2008).

Genetic diversity might potentially be captured in banks storing germplasm, such as

seeds, eggs and sperm. The maintenance of genetic seed banks could complement in

situ measures to buffer against extinction threats from climate change and provide a

source of germplasm for future restoration and research (Simpson & Wang 2007).

Plants have commonly been stored in seed banks, and an objective of the CBD is that

60% of threatened plant species should be held in accessible ex situ collections

(Target 8, Global Strategy for Plant Conservation 2006). The UK Millennium Seed

Bank Project aims to have banked seed from 10% of the world‟s wild plant species by

the end of the decade and Austria has maintained a network of genetic reserves

distributed along environmental gradients (Geburek & Muller 2006). Maintaining

genetic diversity of ecosystems is likely to be particularly important in maintaining

resilience to climate change, and seed banks could contribute to this (Kleinschmit

2002). A recent study suggests that plant species endangered due to habitat

destruction and climate change can be effectively and efficiently propagated ex-situ

(Millner et al. 2008), and the creation of gene banks has been suggested as an

adaptation strategy for oaks and pines in Mexico (Gomez-Mendoza & Arriaga 2007)

and plant species in China (Li & Xia 2004), as a complement to habitat conservation.

The inclusion of crop wild relatives in seed banks could also contribute to agricultural

adaptation (Jarvis et al. 2008).

38

Captive breeding and germplasm banks require large resources for their maintenance

and are therefore unlikely long-term strategies for more than a few species. Further,

the ecosystems might become so altered that reintroduction of species back into the

wild becomes unfeasible, consigning these species to become “living fossils” (Heinz

2008).

5.2.3 Genes

High levels of genetic diversity within populations are desirable to ensure

adaptability. As genetic diversity is correlated with population size and diversity,

adaptation should strive to maintain or create large populations. Further gene flow

between populations might be desirable, but mixing could also swamp local

adaptation and result in homogenisation (Gregory et al. 2006). The adaptation

strategies outlined above for ecosystems and species with their advantage and

disadvantages are likely to apply similarly to genes. The causes and consequences of

the maintenance and loss of climate-related genetic diversity within populations are

currently poorly understood and require further research (Jump & Penuelas 2005).

Actions in the conservation sector should by definition have a positive impact on

biodiversity. However, conservation following “business as usual” under future

climate change can have negative impacts (Hannah et al. 2002). Conservation

management in the context of climate change will need to identify in the short term

effective actions that can improve the abilities of ecosystems and species to

accommodate and adapt to climate change in the medium and longer term, despite the

many uncertainties that still exist and the lack of concrete information about the

effects of different management actions (Heller & Zavaleta 2008). As a whole, the

sector is likely to draw on a wide range of options including expansion and alteration

of protected areas systems and changes to their management, enhancing the functional

connectivity between ecosystems through the use of corridors, stepping stones and

wildlife friendly management of the wider landscape, reducing the impacts of

pressures not linked to climate change, and managing species directly to enhance their

ability to persist and to shift their ranges in response to climate change. While most of

these adaptation measures will benefit some species if carefully implemented, there is

a danger that some will have secondary consequences affecting biodiversity

negatively, e.g. invasive species due to translocation. Therefore, careful consideration

is required to minimise potential negative consequences before adaptation measures

are implemented. Enhancing the resilience of biodiversity to the impacts of climate

change is likely to be important both for societal adaptation and for mitigation.

39

6 Synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation

Adaptation measures required will depend on the scale of the impacts. Adaptation is

therefore closely related to mitigation, and some recognition of the synergies and

trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation strategies is required (Ayers & Huq

2008). The IPCC 4AR reported that there was inadequate literature on the relationship

between adaptation and mitigation policy (Adger et al. 2007) and this area is only

recently beginning to be explored (Nyong, Adesina & Elasha 2007). In some cases,

adaptation measures can contribute to mitigation, whereas in others they may run

contrary to each other (Berry et al. 2008). It is important to recognise the areas in

which trade-offs need to be made (Harper 2008), as well as to identify „win win‟

solutions. It has been suggested that natural resource management is one of the areas

with the greatest potential for achieving the objectives of both adaptation and

mitigation, due to the major role that ecosystems play in the carbon cycle (as

reviewed in the background documents for the first meeting of the Second AHTEG on

Biodiversity and Climate Change) (Campbell et al. 2008)), and in underpinning

adaptation strategies (Ravindranath 2007). Desertification, biodiversity and climate

change are dealt as separate issues under the international convention, when in fact

they all interact (Cowie, Schneider & Montanarella 2007; Eriksen et al. 2006).

REDD is commonly identified in the literature as a strategy with the potential to

support both adaptation and mitigation, whilst providing significant biodiversity

benefits (Locatelli et al. 2008; Murdiyarso et al. 2005; Nabuurs et al. 2007;

Ravindranath 2007; Eliasch 2008; Nepstad et al. 2008; Righelato & Spracklen 2007).

Soil and water conservation through good agricultural practice and agroforestry can

reduce carbon loss and enhance soil organic matter to reduce the vulnerability to

drought and flooding (Nyong et al. 2007; Ravindranath 2007; Verchot, V et al. 2007;

Berry et al. 2008; Lal 2008; Rosenzweig & Tubiello 2007). Planting species mixtures

can stabilize soil, reduce flooding, and improve the adaptive capacity of forest

plantations in the long term (Berry et al. 2008), and mangrove plantations can build

resilience to coastal storms and also sequester carbon (Ayers & Huq 2008).

It is clear that there are significant areas of overlap between adaptation and mitigation.

However, there are also trade-offs to be made. Water resources can be directly

impacted by forestry mitigation activities where appropriate species are not used

(Betts 2007). Adaptation options in the water sector can involve draining wetlands,

turning them into a net source of emissions (Mata & Budhooram 2007). This area

would appear to require further research. Any adaptation option that involves the loss

and degradation of natural ecosystems can result in green house gas emissions, and

may be maladaptation in the long term.

40

7 Conclusion

Adaptation to climate change is a relatively new field, and the literature available in

this area is limited. Very few adaptation strategies have actually been implemented,

but those that have tend to rely on technological and engineering measures. The

limited evidence to date suggests that although technological and structural adaptation

measures will be required, biodiversity will also play a vital role in adaptation to

climate change.

The evidence presented here suggests that ecosystem-based adaptation can be a cost-

effective strategy to address the impacts of climate change, particularly in vulnerable

areas where adaptive capacity is low. Indeed, many of the examples to date have been

linked to community-based adaptation, where local communities that rely directly on

natural resources can increase their adaptive capacity through good management of

their natural resource base (Huq et al. 2005). The lack of cost-benefit analyses of the

different adaptation options makes conclusions tentative and most available evidence

is anecdotal or based on case studies. However, it is clear that coastal ecosystems can

play a role in coastal protection and buffer the impacts of storms while maintaining

fish supplies; natural wetlands and rivers are vital in water adaptation; and forests

play a role in water regulation and soil conservation whilst maintaining livelihood

options. Crop diversity and good agricultural practice is likely to play a large role in

agricultural adaptation. This is not just important for the poor, but for society as a

whole.

The term „ecosystem-based adaptation‟, although it has been used here, can give the

impression that adaptation based on biodiversity is completely separate from other

more structural measures; and that adaptation strategies are either ecosystem-based or

structural. In fact, optimal adaptation strategies often involve the incorporation of

biodiversity into wider adaptation planning as a complement to, rather than an

alternative to, structural measures. Indeed the importance of adopting an integrated

approach that incorporates adaptation measures that are based on biodiversity is

highlighted throughout the literature.

Furthermore, climate change impacts can be exacerbated by management practices,

such as the development of seawalls, flood management and fire management, that do

not consider other sectors such as biodiversity conservation and water resource

management; this results in maladaptation in the longer term (World Bank 2008;

Hulme 2005). In addition, the use of technology and infrastructure can „lock in

adaptation‟ to a specific impact, whereas the incorporation of „soft‟ adaptation

measures, including land use planning, natural resource management, and building

social adaptive capacity, can allow for flexible responses (Kirshen et al. 2008; Koch

et al. 2009; Matthews & Quesne 2008). Integration is required not just between

biodiversity-based adaptation and technological measures, but also across different

adaptation sectors, and will require significant institutional support.

Climate change is already having measurable impacts on ecosystems and on

biodiversity more generally, and these are expected to grow. Adaptation in the

biodiversity conservation sector is required, not just to achieve the conservation of

biodiversity for its own sake, but to maintain the role of biodiversity in contributing to

41

societal adaptation. Adaptation strategies in the conservation sector are still in the

early stages of development. They include factoring climate change into protected

area design, managing the wider landscape to ensure functional connectivity between

habitats, and reducing other pressures on ecosystems. Careful consideration of

adaptation options such as assisted migration is required, as actions to improve the

conservation status of one species might have wider impacts on biodiversity. More

guidance is required on how to build resilience to climate change in ecosystems and

species, particularly in developing countries where many people are directly reliant

upon their natural resources.

Increasing the resilience of ecosystems to climate change also supports their role in

climate change mitigation. The linkages between mitigation and adaptation are only

beginning to be explored, but it is clear that natural resource management is one of the

areas with the greatest potential for synergies. It is also an area in which trade-offs can

exist. Managing the trade-offs and promoting the synergies between adaptation and

mitigation in the land use sector is likely to be important both in adaptation to climate

change, and in limiting climate change to a level at which it is still possible to adapt.

Although we have separated this report into three sections, considering the role of

biodiversity in societal adaptation, the impacts of adaptation strategies on

biodiversity, and adaptation in the biodiversity conservation sector, it is clear that all

three are interlinked. Ultimately, a broader perspective is required that focuses on how

ecosystems can be managed and conserved in order to deliver ecosystem goods and

services in a changing climate, within the context of overall adaptation policy.

The coverage of costs and benefit analyses across adaptation options is uneven, and

further research is required in this area. There needs to be greater consideration of

synergies and trade-offs in adaptation policy and planning, including improved

understanding of the underpinning role of biodiversity, to avoid maladaptation and

develop cost-effective responses to the impacts of climate change.

42

References

Abramovitz et al. Adapting to Climate Change: Natural Resource Management and

Vulnerability Reduction. 2006.

Adger,W.N., Agrawala,S., Mirza,M.M.Q., Conde,C., OÆBrien,K., Pulhin,J.,

Pulwarty,R., Smit,B. & Takahashi,K. Assessment of adaptation practices, options,

constraints and capacity. M.L.Parry, O. F. Canziani J. P. Palutikof P. J. van der

Linden and C. E. Hanson Eds. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and

Vulnerability.Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 717-743. 2007. CAmbridge, UK,

Cambridge University Press.

Adger,W.N., Arnell,N.W. & Tompkins,E.L. (2005a) Successful adaptation to climate

change across scales. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions,

15, 77-86.

Adger,W.N., Hughes,T.P., Folke,C., Carpenter,S.R. & Rockstrom,J. (2005b) Social-

ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309, 1036-1039.

Aggarwal,P. (2008) Global climate change and Indian agriculture: impacts, adaptation

and mitigation. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 78, 911-919.

Agrawal,A. The role of local institutions in adaptation to climate change. Social

Dimensions of Climate Change workshop, World Bank, March . 2008.

AIACC. Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change in the Biodiversity Sector in Southern Africa. Project No. AF 04. 2006. Washington DC, START.

AIACC. A Stitch in Time: Lessons for Climate Change Adaptation from the

AIACC Project. Working Paper No.48. 2007.

Aitken,S., Yeaman,S., Holliday,J., Wang,T. & Curtis-McLane,S. (2008) Adaptation,

migration or extirpation: climate change outcomes for tree populations. Evolutionary

Applications, 1, 95-111.

Allison,E., Perry,A.L., Badjeck,M.C., Adger,W.N., Brown,K., Conway,D.,

Halls,A.S., Pilling,G.M., Reynolds,J.D., Andrew,N.L. & Dulvy,N.K. (2009)

Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries.

Fish and Fisheries.

Alongi,D.M. (2008) Mangrove forests: Resilience, protection from tsunamis, and

responses to global climate change. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 76, 1-13.

Araujo,M.B., Cabeza,M., Thuiller,W., Hannah,L. & Williams,P.H. (2004) Would

climate change drive species out of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve-

selection methods. Global Change Biology, 10, 1618-1626.

43

ATKINSON,P.W. (2004) Managed realignment in the UK - the first 5 years of

colonization by birds

Ibis.

Ayers,J.M. & Huq,S. (2008) The Value of Linking Mitigation and Adaptation: A

Case Study of Bangladesh. Environmental Management.

Ayyad,M.A. (2003) Case studies in the conservation of biodiversity: degradation and

threats. Journal of Arid Environments, 54, 165-182.

Azam-Ali,S. (2007) Agricultural diversification: The potential for underutilised crops

in Africa's changing climates. Rivista di Biologia-Biology Forum, 100, 27-37.

Backlund,P., Janetos,A. & Schimel,D. (2008) The effects of climate change on

agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States. The

effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and

biodiversity in the United States, vii.

Bailey-Serres,J. & Voesenek,L.A.C.J. (2008) Flooding stress: Acclimations and

genetic diversity. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 59, 313-339.

Baker,A.C., Starger,C.J., Mcclanahan,T.R. & Glynn,P.W. (2004) Corals' adaptive

response to climate change. Nature, 430, 741.

Bambaradeniya,C., Sengupta,S., Perera,S., Tamelander,J., Meynell,M., Rust,M.,

Vidanage,S. & Perera,S. (2005) Rapid Environmental and Socio-Economic

Assessment of Tsunami-Damage in Terrestrial and Marine Coastal Ecosystems of

Ampara and Batticaloa Districts of Eastern Sri Lanka. IUCN-The World Conservation

Union.

Barbier,E.B. (2006) Natural barriers to natural disasters: replanting mangroves after

the tsunami. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4, 124-131.

Bates,B.C., Kundzewicz,Z.W., Wu,S. & Palutikof,J.P. Climate Change and Water.

Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat,

Geneva, 210 pp. 2008.

Beale,C.M., Lennon,J.J. & Gimona,A. (2008) Opening the climate envelope reveals

no macroscale associations with climate in European birds. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, 105, 14908-14912.

Berry,P.M., Paterson,J., Cabeza,M., Dubuis,A., Guisan,A., Jaattela,L., Kuhm,I.,

Musche,M., Piper,J. & Wilson,E. Adaptation and mitigation measures and their

impacts on biodiversity. 2008. MACIS. Minimisation of and Adaptation to Climate

change Impacts on biodiverSity.

Berry,P.M., Rounsevell,M.D.A., Harrison,P.A. & Audsley,E. (2006) Assessing the

vulnerability of agricultural land use and species to climate change and the role of

policy in facilitating adaptation. Environmental Science & Policy, 9, 189-204.

44

Best,A.S. (2007) Which species will succesfully track climate change? The influence

of intraspecific competition and density dependent dispersal on range shifting

dynamics. Oikos, 116, 1531-1539.

Betts,R. (2007) Implications of land ecosystem-atmosphere interactions for strategies

for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Tellus Series B-Chemical and Physical

Meteorology, 59, 602-615.

Betts,R., Sanderson,M. & Woodward,S. (2008) Effects of large-scale Amazon forest

degradation on climate and air quality through fluxes of carbon dioxide, water,

energy, mineral dust and isoprene. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-

Biological Sciences, 363, 1873-1880.

Betts,R.A., Malhi,Y. & Roberts,J.T. (2008) The future of the Amazon: new

perspectives from climate, ecosystem and social sciences. Philosophical Transactions

of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 363, 1729-1735.

Bhalla,R.S. (2007) Do bio-shields affect tsunami inundation? Current Science, 93,

831-833.

Bhandari,P., Suruchi,B. & Ulka,K. (2007) Examining adaptation and mitigation

opportunities in the context of the integrated watershed management programme of

the Government of India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,

12, 919-933.

Bilodeau,A.L. & Bourgeois,R.P. (2004) Impact of Beach Restoration on the Deep-

Burrowing Ghost Shrimp, Callichirus islagrande. Journal of Coastal Research, 20,

931-936.

Blanco,A.V.R. COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS: LINKING

ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE, SUSTAINABLE LAND USE,

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT. 2004.

Blockley,D.J. (2007) Effect of wharves on intertidal assemblages on seawalls in

Sydney Harbour, Australia. Marine Environmental Research, 63, 409-427.

Bowe,C. (2007) Potential answers to the adaptation to and mitigation of climate

change through the adoption of underutilised crops. Tropical Agriculture Association

Newsletter, 27, 9-13.

Bozek,C.M. & Burdick,D.M. (2005) Impacts of Seawalls on Saltmarsh Plant

Communities in the Great Bay Estuary, New Hampshire USA. Wetlands Ecology and

Management, 13, 553-568.

Brander,K.M. (2007) Global fish production and climate change. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 19709-19714.

Brondizio,E.S. & Moran,E.F. (2008) Human dimensions of climate change: the

vulnerability of small farmers in the Amazon. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 363, 1803-1809.

45

Brooker,R., Young,J.C. & Watt,A.D. (2007) Climate change and biodiversity:

Impacts and policy development challenges - a European case study. International

Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management, 3, 12-30.

Bryan,E., Deressa,T.T., Gbetibouo,G.A. & Ringler,C. (2009) Adaptation to climate

change in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints. Environmental Science

and Policy.

Bulleri,F., Abbiati,M. & Airoldi,L. (2006) The colonisation of human-made structures

by the invasive alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides in the north Adriatic Sea (NE

Mediterranean). Hydrobiologia, 555, 263-269.

Bush,M.B., Silman,M.R., McMichael,C. & Saatchi,S. (2008) Fire, climate change and

biodiversity in Amazonia: a Late-Holocene perspective. Philosophical Transactions

of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 363, 1795-1802.

Campbell,A., Chenery,A., Coad,L., Kapos,V., Kershaw,F., Scharlemann,J. &

Dickson,B. The linkages between biodiversity and climate change mitigation UNEP

World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 2008.

Cangir,C. & Boyraz,D. (2008) Climate change and impact of desertification or

soil/land degradation in Turkey, combating desertification. Journal of Tekirdag

Agricultural Faculty, 5, 169-186.

Carpenter,S.R., Bennett,E.M. & Peterson,G.D. (2006) Scenarios for ecosystem

services: An overview. Ecology and Society, 11.

Carroll,C. (2007) Interacting effects of climate change, landscape conversion, and

harvest on carnivore populations at the range margin: Marten and Lynx in the

northern Appalachians. Conservation Biology, 21, 1092-1104.

Castillo,G.E., Namara,R.E., Ravnborg,H.M., Hanjra,M.A., Smith,L., Hussein,M.H.,

Bene,C., Cook,S., Hirsch,D. & Polak,P. (2007) Water for Food, Water for Life: a

Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture.

CCSP. Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and

resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the

Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S.

Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson,

and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC, USA, 873 pp.

Chapin,F.S., Danell,K., Elmqvist,T., Folke,C. & Fresco,N. (2007) Managing climate

change impacts to enhance the resilience and sustainability of Fennoscandian forests.

Ambio, 36, 528-533.

Chapman,M.G. (2006) Intertidal Seawalls As Habitats for Molluscs. The Journal of

molluscan studies, 72, 247-257.

Chapman,S., Buttler,A., Francez,A.-J., Laggoun-Défarge,F., Vasander,H.,

Schloter,M., Combe,J., Grosvernier,P., Harms,H., Epron,D., Gilbert,D. & Mitchell,E.

(2003) Exploitation of northern peatlands and biodiversity maintenance: a conflict

46

between economy and ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1, 525-

532.

Chatterjee,K., Chatterjee,A. & Das,S. (2005) Case study 2: India community

adaptation to drought in Rajasthan. Ids Bulletin-Institute of Development Studies, 36,

33-+.

Cherian,A. (2007) Linkages between biodiversity conservation and global climate

change in small island developing States (SIDS). Natural Resources Forum, 31, 128-

131.

Chigwada,J. (2005) Case study 6: Zimbabwe - Climate proofing infrastructure and

diversifying livelihoods in Zimbabwe. Ids Bulletin-Institute of Development Studies,

36, 103-+.

Chivian,E. & Bernstein,A. (2008) Sustaining life: how human health depends on

biodiversity. Oxford University Press, USA.

CICERO & UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Many Strong Voices: Dynamic Assessment of

Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in Small Island Developing States.

2008. CICERO.

Clynick,B.G., Chapman,M.G. & Underwood,A.J. (2008) Fish assemblages associated

with urban structures and natural reefs in Sydney, Australia. Austral Ecology, 33, 140-

150.

Cochard,R., Ranamukhaarachchi,S.L., Shivakoti,G.P., Shipin,O.V., Edwards,P.J. &

Seeland,K.T. (2008) The 2004 tsunami in Aceh and Southern Thailand: A review on

coastal ecosystems, wave hazards and vulnerability. Perspectives in Plant Ecology

Evolution and Systematics, 10, 3-40.

Colosio,F., Abbiati,M. & Airoldi,L. (2007) Effects of beach nourishment on

sediments and benthic assemblages. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54, 1197-1206.

Conlan,K., Wade,T., Ormerod,S., Lane,S., Durance,I. & Yu,D. (2007) Using science

to create a better place: preparing for climate change impacts on freshwater

ecosystems (PRINCE). Preparing for climate change impacts on freshwater

ecosystems (PRINCE).

Corfee-Morlot,J., Berg,M., Caspary,G., Munasinghe,M., Morera,L., Cabeza,O.,

Black-Arbelez,T., Grubb,M., Yang,J. & Schreifels,J. Exploring Linkages between

Natural Resource Management and Climate Adaptation Strategies. 2003.

Correia,F.W.S., Alvala,R.C.S. & Manzi,A.O. (2008) Modeling the impacts of land

cover change in Amazonia: a regional climate model (RCM) simulation study.

Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 93, 225-244.

Corvalan,C., Hales,S. & McMichael,A. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Health

Synthesis. 2005. FAO. A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

Costanza,R., Perez-Maqueo,O., Martinez,M.L., Sutton,P., Anderson,S.J. & Mulder,K.

(2008) The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio, 37, 241-248.

47

Coulthard,S. (2008) Adapting to environmental change in artisanal fisheries - Insights

from a South Indian Lagoon. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy

Dimensions, 18, 479-489.

Cowie,A., Schneider,U.A. & Montanarella,L. (2007) Potential synergies between

existing multilateral environmental agreements in the implementation of land use,

land-use change and forestry activities. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 335-352.

Crowther,A.E. (2007) The restoration of intertidal habitats for non-breeding

waterbirds through breached managed realignment. University of Stirling.

Danielsen,F., Sorensen,M.K., Olwig,M.F., Selvam,V., Parish,F., Burgess,N.D.,

Hiraishi,T., Karunagaran,V.M., Rasmussen,M.S., Hansen,L.B., Quarto,A. &

Suryadiputra,N. (2005) The Asian Tsunami: A Protective Role for Coastal

Vegetation. Science, 310, 643.

Dasgupta,S., Laplante,B., Meisner,C., Wheeler,D., Yan,D.J., Consultant,I. & Floor,T.

The impact of sea level rise on developing countries: a comparative analysis. Policy

Research Working Paper 4136. 2007. Washington DC, World Bank.

Davies,Z.G. & Pullin,A.S. (2007) Are hedgerows effective corridors between

fragments of woodland habitat? An evidence-based approach. Landscape Ecology, 22,

333-351.

Day,J.W., Jr., Boesch,D.F., Clairain,E.J., Kemp,G.P., Laska,S.B., Mitsch,W.J.,

Orth,K., Mashriqui,H., Reed,D.J., Shabman,L., Simenstad,C.A., Streever,B.J.,

Twilley,R.R., Watson,C.C., Wells,J.T. & Whigham,D.F. (2007) Restoration of the

Mississippi Delta: Lessons from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Science, 315, 1679-

1684.

de la Vega-Leinert,A. & Nicholls,R.J. (2008) Potential implications of sea-level rise

for Great Britain. Journal of Coastal Research, 24, 342-357.

Donald,P.F. Climate change and habitat connectivity; assessing the need for

landscape-scale adaptation for birds in the UK. RSPB Research Report No 10. 2005.

Donald,P.F. & Evans,A.D. (2006) Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the

wider implications of agri-environment schemes. Ecology, 43, 209-218.

Donoghue,M.J. (2008) A phylogenetic perspective on the distribution of plant

diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America, 105, 11549-11555.

Dugan,J.E., Hubbard,D.M., Rodil,I.F., Revell,D.L. & Schroeter,S. (2008) Ecological

effects of coastal armoring on sandy beaches. Marine Ecology-An Evolutionary

Perspective, 29, 160-170.

Dunlop,M. & Brown,P.R. Implications of climate change for Australia's National

Reserve System: A preliminary assessment. Report to the Department of Climate

Change, February 2008 Department of Climate Change, Canberra, Australia. 2008.

48

Duxbury,J. & Dickinson,S. (2007) Principles for sustainable governance of the coastal

zone: In the context of coastal disasters. Ecological Economics, 63, 319-330.

Eliasch,J. Climate Change: Financing Global Forests. The Eliasch Review. 2008.

UK, The Stationery Office Limited.

Ellis,M.H.C. (2008) Managed retreat: Coastal development in an era of climate

change. Landscape Architecture, 98, 74-+.

Emerton,L. & Bos,E. (2004) Value: counting ecosystems as water infrastructure.

World Conservation Union.

Enow,A. & Muhongo,S. (2007) Adaptation of socio-ecological systems in sub-

Saharan Africa to global environmental change: ICSU ROA's strategy. Environmental

Science, Ecosystems and Development, 400-405.

Eriksen,S., Gachathi,F.N., Muok,B., Ochieng,B. & Owuor,B. (2006) Synergies in

Biodiversity Conservation and Adaptation to Climate Change: The Case of Hilltop

Forests in Kitui, Kenya. Savannas and Dry Forests. Linking People with Nature (eds

J. Mistry & A. Berardi), pp. 187-226.

Eriksen,S. (2005) The role of indigenous plants in household adaptation to climate

change: the Kenyan experience. Climate change and Africa, 248-259.

Eriksen,S.E.H., Klein,R.J.T., Ulsrud,K., Nss,L.O. & OÆBrien,K. Climate Change

Adaptation and Poverty Reduction: Key interactions and critical measures. rapport

prpar pour lÆAgence norvgienne de coopration pour le dveloppement (Norad),

GECHS Report 1. 2007. Oslo, Norway, Global Environmental Change and Human

Security (GECHS).

Eriksen,S.H., Brown,K. & Kelly,P.M. (2005) The dynamics of vulnerability: locating

coping strategies in Kenya and Tanzania. Geographical Journal, 171, 287-305.

European Commission. The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity (TEEB):

Interim Report. 2008. Germany, European Commission.

Falkenmark,M. & Rockstrom,J. Building resilience to drought in desertification-prone

savannas in Sub-Saharan Africa: The water perspective. Natural Resources Forum

32[2], 93-102. 2008. Blackwell Synergy.

Fanini,L., Marchetti,G.M., Scapini,F. & Defeo,O. (2009) Effects of beach

nourishment and groynes building on population and community descriptors of

mobile arthropodofauna. Ecological Indicators, 9, 167-178.

FAO. Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: perspective,

framework and priorities. 2007.

Feagin,R.A. (2008) Vegetation's role in coastal protection. Science, 320, 176-177.

Fischlin,A., Midgley,G.F., Price,J.T., Leemans,R., Gopal,B., Turley,C.,

Rounsevell,M.D.A., Dube,O.P., Tarazona,J. & Velichko,A.A. Ecosystems, their

properties, goods and services. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and

49

Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P.

Palukitof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK. 2007.

Fowler,C. (2008) Crop Diversity: Neolithic Foundations for Agriculture's Future

Adaptation to Climate Change. Ambio, 498-501.

Fox,D. (2007) When worlds collide. Conservation, 8, 28-34.

Fraiture,C., Smakhtin,V., Bossio,D., McCornick,P., Hoanh,C., Noble,A., Molden,D.,

Gichuki,F., Giordano,M., Finlayson,M. & Turral,H. (2007) Facing Climate Change

by Securing Water for Food, Livelihoods and Ecosystems. SAT eJourna, 4, 1-21.

Francisco,H. (2008) Adaptation to climate change: needs and opportunities in

Southeast Asia. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 25, 7-19.

French,J.R. (2008) Hydrodynamic modelling of estuarine flood defence realignment

as an adaptive management response to sea-level rise. Journal of Coastal Research,

24, 1-12.

Galaz,V. (2007) Water governance, resilience and global environmental change - a

reassessment of integrated water CO resources management (IWRM). Water Science

and Technology, 56, 1-9.

Galvani,A. (2007) The challenge of the food sufficiency through salt tolerant crops.

Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 6, 3-16.

Gardiner,S., Hanson,S., Nicholls,R., Zhang,Z., Jude,S., Jones,A., Richards,J.,

Williams,A., Spencer,T. & Cope,S. The Habitats Directive, Coastal Habitats and

Climate ChangeûCase Studies from the South Coast of the UK. 108. 2007. Tyndall

Centre for Climate Change Research.

Gayton,D.V. (2008) Impacts of climate change on British Columbia's biodiversity: a

literature review. Forrex Series.

Geburek,T. & Muller,F. (2006) Sustainable use of forest genetic resources in Austria -

evaluation of previous action und perspectives. BFW Berichte.

Gibbs,M.T. (2009) Resilience: What is it and what does it mean for marine

policymakers? Marine Policy, 33, 322-331.

Gillies,C.S. & Clair,C.C. (2008) Riparian corridors enhance movement of a forest

specialist bird in fragmented tropical forest. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 105, 19774-19779.

Gilman,E.L., Ellison,J., Duke,N.C. & Field,C. (2008) Threats to mangroves from

climate change and adaptation options: A review. Aquatic Botany, 89, 237-250.

Gilman,E., Ellison,J. & Coleman,R. (2007) Assessment of Mangrove Response to

Projected Relative Sea-Level Rise And Recent Historical Reconstruction of Shoreline

Position. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 124, 105-130.

50

Glick,P., Staudt,A. & Stein,B. A New Era for Conservation: Review of Climate

Change Adaptation Literature. Discussion Draft. 2009. National Wildlife

Federation.

Goklany,I.M. (2007) Integrated strategies to reduce vulnerability and advance

adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Mitigation and Adaptation

Strategies for Global Change, 12, 755-786.

Gomez-Mendoza,L. & Arriaga,L. (2007) Modeling the effect of climate change on

the distribution of oak and pine species of Mexico. Conservation Biology, 21, 1545-

1555.

Graham,N.A.J., McClanahan,T.R., MacNeil,M.A., Wilson,S.K., Polunin,N.V.C.,

Jennings,S., Chabanet,P., Clark,S., Spalding,M.D., Letourneur,Y., Bigot,L.,

Galzin,R., Ohman,M.C., Garpe,K.C., Edwards,A.J. & Sheppard,C.R.C. (2008)

Climate warming, marine protected areas and the ocean-scale integrity of coral reef

ecosystems. Plos One, 3, e3039.

Granek,E.F. & Ruttenberg,B.I. (2007) Protective capacity of mangroves during

tropical storms: a case study from 'Wilma' and 'Gamma' in Belize. Marine Ecology-

Progress Series, 343, 101-105.

Gregory,A., Burke,T., Ferris,R., Robson,J., Smithers,R. & Whitlock,R. The

conservation of genetic diversity: Science and policy needs in a changing world. No.

383. 2006. Peterborough, JNCC.

Gregory,P., Johnson,S., Newton,A. & Ingram,J. (2008) Climate change: the challenge

for international agriculture. Aspects of Applied Biology, 1.

Grimm,N.B., Faeth,S.H., Golubiewski,N.E., Redman,C.L., Wu,J.G., Bai,X.M. &

Briggs,J.M. (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science, 319, 756-760.

Grimsditch,G.D.a.S.R.V. Coral Reef Resilienceand Resistance to Bleaching. 2006.

Gland, Switzerland., IUCN.

Guariguata,M., Cornelius,J., Locatelli,B., Forner,C. & Sanchez-Azofeifa,G. (2008)

Mitigation needs adaptation: tropical forestry and climate change. Mitigation and

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13.

Gullison,R.E., Frumhoff,P.C., Canadell,J.G., Field,C.B., Nepstad,D.C., Hayhoe,K.,

Avissar,R., Curran,L.M., Friedlingstein,P., Jones,C.D. & Nobre,C. (2007) Tropical

forests and climate policy. Science, 316, 985-986.

Halls,A.S., Payne,A.I., Alam,S.S. & Barman,S.K. (2008) Impacts of flood control

schemes on inland fisheries in Bangladesh: guidelines for mitigation. Hydrobiologia,

609, 45-58.

Hanak,E. & Moreno,G. (2008) California Coastal Management with a Changing

Climate. Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC Research Reports.

51

Hannah,L. (2008) Protected areas and climate change. Year In Ecology And

Conservation Biology 2008 Annals of the new york academy of sciences.

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, OXFORD.

Hannah,L., Midgley,G.F., Lovejoy,T., Bond,W.J., Bush,M., Lovett,J.C., Scott,D. &

Woodward,F.I. (2002) Conservation of Biodiversity in a Changing Climate.

Conservation Biology, 16, 264-268.

Hardaway,C.S., Varnell,L.M., Milligan,D.A., Priest,W.I., Thomas,G.R. &

Brindley,R.C.H. (2002) An integrated habitat enhancement approach to shoreline

stabilization for a Chesapeake Bay island community. Wetlands Ecology and

Management, 10, 289-302.

Harley,M. & Hodgson,N. Review of existing international and national guidance on

adaptation to climate change: with a focus on biodiversity issues. AEA Technology.

2008.

Harmeling,S. & Bals,C. Adaptation to climate change—where do we go from Bali?

Briefing paper- Germanwatch. http://www.germanwatch.org/klima/adapt08e.htm.

2008.

Harper,P. (2008) Compatibility of adaption and mitigation strategies in UK

agriculture. Aspects of Applied Biology, 83.

Harris,J.A., Hobbs,R.J., Higgs,E. & Aronson,J. (2006) Ecological restoration and

global climate change. Restoration Ecology, 14, 170-176.

Harrison,P.A., Berry,P.M., Henriques,C. & Holman,I.P. (2008) Impacts of socio-

economic and climate change scenarios on wetlands: linking water resource and

biodiversity meta-models. Climatic Change, 90, 113-139.

Hartmann,M., Hediger,W. & Peter,S. REDUCING NITROGEN LOSSES FROM

AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS-- AN INTEGRATED ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT.

2007. German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA)> 47th Annual

Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 26-28, Association.

hdouh-Guebas,F. & Koedam,N. (2006) Coastal vegetation and the Asian tsunami.

Science, 311, 37.

Hedger,M. & Cacouris,J. Seperate Streams? Adapting Water Resource Management

to Climate Change. 2008. United Kingdon, Tearfund.

Heinz. Strategies for Managing the Effects of Climate Change on Wildlife and

Ecosystems. 2008. The Heinz Centre.

Heller,N.E. & Zavaleta,E.S. (2008) Biodiversity management in the face of climate

change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation.

Heller,N.E. & Zavaleta,E.S. (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate

change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation, 142, 14-

32.

52

Hengsdijk,H., Wang,G.H., Van den Berg,M.M., Wang,J.D., Wolf,J., Lu,C.H.,

Roetter,R.P. & Van Keulen,H. (2007) Poverty and biodiversity trade-offs in rural

development: A case study for Pujiang county, China. Agricultural Systems, 94, 851-

861.

Hockings,M., Stolton,S. & Dudley,N. (2004) Management effectiveness: assessing

management of protected areas? Journal of Environmental Policy Planning, 6, 157-

174.

Hoegh-Guldberg,O., Hughes,L., McIntyre,S., Lindenmayer,D.B., Parmesan,C.,

Possingham,H.P. & Thomas,C.D. (2008) Assisted colonization and rapid climate

change. Science, 321, 345-346.

Hopkins,J.J., Allison,H.M., Walmsley,C.A., Gaywood,M. & Thurgate G. Conserving

biodiversity in a changing climate: guidance on building capacity to adapt. Defra on

behalf of the UK Biodiversity Partnership. 2007.

Huang,G.B.Z.R.Z.L.G.D. (2008) Productivity and sustainability of a spring wheat-

field pea rotation in a semi-arid environment under conventional and conservation

tillage systems. Field Crops Research, 107, 43-55.

Huang,Z., Huang,W., Zhu,J., Wang,L.-M. & Chen,J. (2007) Countermeasure for the

maintenance of connectiveness between the Yangtze river and its once-connected

lakes. gao fen zi xue bao, 16, 113-117.

Hughes,G.O., Thuiller,W., Midgley,G.F. & Collins,K. (2008) Environmental change

hastens the demise of the critically endangered riverine rabbit (Bunolagus

monticulairis). Biological Conservation, 141, 23-34.

Hulme,P.E. (2005) Adapting to climate change: is there scope for ecological

management in the face of a global threat? Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 784-794.

Hunter,M.L. (2007) Climate change and moving species: Furthering the debate on

assisted colonization. Conservation Biology, 21, 1356-1358.

Huntley,B. (2007) Climatic change and the conservation of European biodiveristy:

Towards the development of adaptation strategies. Bern Convention Standing

Committee on Climate Change. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Huq,S. & Ayers,J. (2007) Critical list: the 100 nations most vulnerable to climate

change. IIED Sustainable Development Opinion.

Huq,S., Yamin,F., Rahman,A., Chatterjee,A., Yang,X., Wade,S., Orindi,V. &

Chigwada,J. (2005) Linking climate adaptation and development: A synthesis of six

case studies from Asia and Africa. Ids Bulletin-Institute of Development Studies, 36,

117-+.

Innes,J.L. & Hickey,G.M. (2006) The importance of climate change when considering

the role of forests in the alleviation of poverty. International Forestry Review, 8, 406-

416.

53

IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

ISDR. Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. 2004.

ISDR.

IUCN. ENERGY, ECOSYSTEMS and LIVELIHOODS: Understanding linkages in

the face of climate change impacts. 2008. IUCN.

Iyengar,A., Gilbert,T., Woodfine,T., Knowles,J.M., Diniz,F.M., Brenneman,R.A.,

Louis,E.E. & MaClean,N. (2007) Remnants of ancient genetic diversity preserved

within captive groups of scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah). Molecular Ecology,

16, 2436-2449.

Jagtap,T.G. & Nagle,V.L. (2007) Response and adaptability of mangrove habitats

from the Indian subcontinent to changing climate. Ambio, 36, 328-334.

Jarvis,A., Lane,A. & Hijmans,R.J. (2008) The effect of climate change on crop wild

relatives. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 126, 13-23.

Jenkin,A.P. Managed shoreline retreat and dam removal: Ecosystem restoration to

benefit coastal resources. California and the World Ocean - Proceedings of the

Conference , 491-505. 2005.

Jones,A.R., Gladstone,W. & Hacking,N.J. (2007) Australian sandy-beach ecosystems

and climate change: Ecology and management. Australian Zoologist, 34, 190-202.

Jones,A.R., Murray,A., Lasiak,T.A. & Marsh,R.E. (2008) The effects of beach

nourishment on the sandy-beach amphipod Exoediceros fossor: impact and recovery

in Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia. Marine Ecology, 29, 28-36.

Julius,S.H. & West,J.M. Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-

Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4. 2007.

Jump,A.S. & Penuelas,J. (2005) Running to stand still: adaptation and the response of

plants to rapid climate change. Ecology Letters, 8, 1010-1020.

Kalame,F., Nkem,J., Idinoba,M. & Kanninen,M. (2009) Matching national forest

policies and management practices for climate change adaptation in Burkina Faso and

Ghana. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 14, 135-151.

Kandji,S.T., Verchot,L.V., Mackensen,J. & Palm,C. (2006) Opportunities for linking

climate change adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry systems. World

Agroforestry into the Future, 92.

Kapos,V., Scharlemann,J.P.W., Campbell,A., Chenery,A. & Dickson,B. Impacts of

Climate Change on Biodiversity: A review of the recent scientific literature UNEP

World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 2008.

Kareiva,P., Watts,S., McDonald,R. & Boucher,T. (2007) Domesticated Nature:

Shaping Landscapes and Ecosystems for Human Welfare. Science, 316, 1866-1869.

54

Kerr,A.M. & Baird,A.H. (2007) Natural barriers to natural disasters. Bioscience, 57,

102-103.

Kerr,A.M., Baird,A.H. & Campbell,S.J. (2006) Comments on Coastal mangrove

forests mitigated tsunami by K. Kathiresan and N. Rajendran [Estuar. Coast. Shelf

Sci. 65 (2005) 601û606]. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 67, 539-541.

Kesavan,P.C. & Swaminathan,M.S. (2006) Managing extreme natural disasters in

coastal areas. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A-Mathematical

Physical and Engineering Sciences, 364, 2191-2216.

Kettunen,M., Terry,A., Tucker,G. & Jones,A. Guidance on the maintenance of

landscape features of major importance for wild flora and fauna - Guidance on the

implementation of Article 3 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and Article 10 of the

Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP),

Brussels, 114 pp. & Annexes. 2009.

Killeen,T.J. & Solorzano,L.A. (2008) Conservation strategies to mitigate impacts

from climate change in Amazonia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-

Biological Sciences, 363, 1881-1888.

Kirshen,P., Ruth,M. & Anderson,W. (2008) Interdependencies of urban climate

change impacts and adaptation strategies: a case study of Metropolitan

Boston, USA. Climate change, 86, 105-122.

Kirshen,P., Knee,K. & Ruth,M. (2008) Climate change and coastal flooding in Metro

Boston: impacts and adaptation strategies. Climatic Change, 90, 453-473.

Kjellstrom,T. & Weaver,H.J. (2009) Climate change and health: impacts,

vulnerability, adaptation and mitigation. N S W Public Health Bull, 20, 5-9.

Kleinschmit,J. (2002) Air pollution and climate change: consequences for genetic

resources. Forest Genetics, 9.

Koch,E.W., Barbier,E.B., Silliman,B.R., Reed,D.J., Perillo,G.M.E., Hacker,S.D.,

Granek,E.F., Primavera,J.H., Muthiga,N., Polasky,S., Halpern,B.S., Kennedy,C.J.,

Kappel,C.V. & Wolanski,E. (2009) Non-linearity in ecosystem services: temporal and

spatial variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7,

29-37.

Kotschi,J. (2007) Agricultural biodiversity is essential for adapting to climate change.

Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 16, 98-101.

Kouressy,M., Traore,S., Vaksmann,M., Grum,M., Maikano,I., Soumare,M.,

Traore,P.S., Bazile,D., Dingkuhn,M. & Sidibe,A. (2008) Adaptation of Malian

sorghums to climate variability. Cahiers Agricultures, 17, 95-100.

Krysanova,V., Buiteveld,H., Haase,D., Hattermann,F.F., van Niekerk,K., Roest,K.,

Martinez-Santos,P. & Schluter,M. (2008) Practices and Lessons Learned in Coping

55

with Climatic Hazards at the River-Basin Scale: Floods and Droughts. Ecology and

Society, 13.

Kundzewicz,Z.W., Mata,L.J., Arnell,N.W., Doll,P., Jimenez,B., Miller,K., Oki,T.,

Sen,Z. & Shiklomanov,I. (2008) The implications of projected climate change for

freshwater resources and their management. Hydrological Sciences Journal-Journal

des Sciences Hydrologiques, 53, 3-10.

Kunkel,C.M., Hallberg,R.W. & OPPENHEIMER,M. (2006) Coral reefs reduce

tsunami impact in model simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 33.

La Porta,N., Capretti,P., Thomsen,I.M., Kasanen,R., Hietala,A.M. & Von

Weissenberg,K. (2008) Forest pathogens with higher damage potential due to climate

change in Europe. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology-Revue Canadienne de

Phytopathologie, 30, 177-195.

Lal,R. (2008) Carbon sequestration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

B-Biological Sciences, 363, 815-830.

Lal,R., Follett,R.F., Stewart,B.A. & Kimble,J.M. (2007) Soil carbon sequestration to

mitigate climate change and advance food security. Soil Science, 172, 943-956.

Larsen,E.W., Girvetz,E.H. & Fremier,A.K. (2007) Landscape level planning in

alluvial riparian floodplain ecosystems: Using geomorphic modeling to avoid

conflicts between human infrastructure and habitat conservation. Landscape and

Urban Planning, 79, 338-346.

Lasco,R.D., Cruz,R.V.O., Pulhin,J.M. & Pulhin,F.B. (2008) Spillovers and trade-offs

of adaptation in the Pantabangan-Carranglan Watershed of the Philippines. Climate

Change and Adaptation (eds N. Leary, J. Adejuwon, V. Barros, I. Burton, J. Kulkarni

& R. Lasco), pp. 247-263. Earthscan, London.

Lawler,J.J., Tear,T.H., Pyke,C., Shaw,M.R., Gonzalez,P., Kareiva,P., Hansen,L.,

Hannah,L., Klausmeyer,K., Aldous,A., Bienz,C. & Pearsall,S. (2009) Resource

management in a changing and uncertain climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the

Environment, 0.

Leavy,J. & Lussier,K. The Time is Now: Lessons from Farmers Adapting to Climate

Change. 2008. South Africa, ActionAid.

Lee,T.M. & Jetz,W. (2008) Future battlegrounds for conservation under global

change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 275, 1261-1270.

Lemieux,C.J. & Scott,D.J. (2005) Climate change, biodiversity conservation and

protected area planning in Canada. Canadian Geographer-Geographe Canadien, 49,

384-399.

Leslie,H.M. & Mcleod,K.L. (2007) Confronting the challenges of implementing

marine ecosystem-based management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5,

540-548.

56

Li,F. & Xia,N. (2004) The geographical distribution and cause of threat to

Glyptostrobus pensilis (Taxodiaceae). Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Botany,

12.

Li,M.H., Krauchi,N. & Gao,S.P. (2006) Global warming: Can existing reserves really

preserve current levels of biological diversity? Journal of Integrative Plant Biology,

48, 255-259.

Lobell,D.B., Burke,M.B., Tebaldi,C., Mastrandrea,M.D., Falcon,W.P. & Naylor,R.L.

(2008) Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030.

Science, 319, 607-610.

Locatelli,B., Kanninen,M., Brockhaus,M., Colfer,C.J.P., Murdiyarso,D. & Santoso,H.

Facing an uncertain future: how forest and people can adapt to climate change. 2008.

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.

Luisetti,T., Turner,K. & Bateman,I. An ecosystem services approach to assess

managed realignment coastal policy in England. CSERGE Working Paper ECM

08-04. 2008.

Luo,Q., Bellotti,W., Williams,M. & Wang,E. (2009) Adaptation to climate change of

wheat growing in South Australia: Analysis of management and breeding strategies.

Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 129, 261-267.

MA. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. 2005a.

MA. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:

Desertification Synthesis. 2005b. Washington, DC., World Resources Institute.

Mackey,B.G., Watson,J.E.M., Hope,G. & Gilmore,S. Climate change, biodiversity

conservation, and the role of protected areas: an Australian perspective. 2008.

Biodiversity.

MacKinnon,J. (2008) Species richness and adaptive capacity in animal communities:

lessons from China. Integrative Zoology, 3, 95-100.

MacKinnon,K. Biodiversity and Adaptation: Challenges and Opportunities.

[Environment Matters: Climate Change and Adaptation]. 2007. Washington, World

Bank.

Malhi,Y., Roberts,J.T., Betts,R.A., Killeen,T.J., Li,W.H. & Nobre,C.A. (2008)

Climate change, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon. Science, 319, 169-172.

Mani,M. Beyond the Sea Walls: Financing Adaptation Needs in Developing

Countries. [Environment Matters: Climate Change and Adaptation]. 2007. World

Bank.

Martinez,M.L., Intralawan,A., Vazquez,G., Perez-Maqueo,O., Sutton,P. &

Landgrave,R. (2007) The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social

importance. Ecological Economics, 63, 254-272.

57

Mascarenhas,A. & Jayakumar,S. (2008) An environmental perspective of the post-

tsunami scenario along the coast of Tamil Nadu, India: Role of sand dunes and

forests. Journal of Environmental Management, 89, 24-34.

Mata,L. & Budhooram,J. (2007) Complementarity between mitigation and adaptation:

the water sector. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 799-

807.

Matisziw,T.C. & Murray,A.T. (2009) Connectivity change in habitat networks.

Landscape Ecology, 24, 89-100.

Matthews,J.H. & Quesne,T.L. Adapting water to a changing climate: An overview.

WWF. 2008.

Mattsson,E., Ostwald,M., Nissanka,S.P., Holmer,B. & Palm,M. (2009) Recovery and

protection of coastal ecosystems after tsunami event and potential for participatory

forestry CDMûExamples from Sri Lanka. Ocean and Coastal Management, 52, 1-9.

Mcclanahan,T.R., Cinner,J.E., Maina,J., Graham,N.A.J., Daw,T.M., Stead,S.M.,

Wamukota,A., Brown,K., Ateweberhan,M. & Venus,V. (2008) Conservation action in

a changing climate. Conservation Letters, 1, 53-59.

McEvoy,D., Lindley,S. & Handley,J. (2006) Adaptation and mitigation in urban

areas: synergies and conflicts. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-

Municipal Engineer, 159, 185-191.

Mcfadden,L. (2008) Exploring the challenges of integrated coastal zone management

and reflecting on contributions to 'integration' from geographical thought.

Geographical Journal, 174, 299-314.

McKinnon,G.A. & Webber,S.L. (2005) Climate change impacts and adaptation in

Canada: Is the forest sector prepared? Forestry Chronicle, 81, 653-654.

McLachlan,J.S., Hellmann,J.J. & Schwartz,M.W. (2007) A framework for debate of

assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conservation Biology, 21, 297-302.

McLeod,E., Salm,R., Green,A. & Almany,J. (2009) Designing marine protected area

networks to address the impacts of climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the

Environment, 0.

McVicar,T.R., Li,L.T., Van Niel,T.G., Zhang,L., Li,R., Yang,Q.K., Zhang,X.P.,

Mu,X.M., Wen,Z.M. & Liu,W.Z. (2007) Developing a decision support tool for

China's re-vegetation program: Simulating regional impacts of afforestation on

average annual streamflow in the Loess Plateau. Forest Ecology and Management,

251, 65-81.

Meadows,D. & Brosnan,D. (2008) Lessons for minimizing impacts to coral reef and

other ecosystems from the 2004 tsunami. Mitigating Impacts of Natural Hazards on

Fishery Ecosystems, 64, 325-342.

58

Meza,F.J., Silva,D. & Vigil,H. (2008) Climate change impacts on irrigated maize in

Mediterranean climates: Evaluation of double cropping as an emerging adaptation

alternative. Agricultural Systems, 98, 21-30.

Millar,C.I., Stephenson,N.L. & Stephens,S.L. (2007) Climate change and forests of

the future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17, 2145-

2151.

Milligan,J., O'Riordan,T., Nicholson-Cole,S.A. & Watkinson,A.R. (2009) Nature

conservation for future sustainable shorelines: Lessons from seeking to involve the

public. Land Use Policy, 26, 203-213.

Millner,H.J., Obeng,A., Mccrea,A.R. & Baldwin,T.C. (2008) Axenic seed

germination and in vitro seedling development of Restrepia brachypus (Orchidaceae).

Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 135, 497-505.

Mitchell,R.J., Morecroft,M.D., Acreman,M., Crick,H.Q.P., Frost,M., Harley,M.,

Maclean,I.M.D., Mountford,O., Piper,J. & Pontier,H. (2007) England Biodiversity

Strategy: Towards adaptation to climate change.

Defra.(http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlifecountryside/resprog/findings/ebs-climate-

change.pdf).

Molden,D.J.R.O.T.S.P.K.J.H.M.a.B.P.S. (2007) Pathways for increasing agricultural

water productivity. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of

Water Management in Agriculture (ed D. Molden), Earthscan London and

International Water Management Institute, Colombo.

Moreira,J. (2006) Patterns of occurrence of grazing molluscs on sandstone and

concrete seawalls in Sydney Harbour (Australia). Molluscan research, 26, 51-60.

Morris,J. (2007) Ecological engineering in intertidial saltmarshes. pp. 161-168.

Mueller,J.M. & Hellmann,J.J. (2008) An assessment of invasion risk from assisted

migration. Conservation Biology, 22, 562-567.

Mukheibir,P. (2008) Water resources management strategies for adaptation to

climate-induced impacts in South Africa. Water Resources Management, 22, 1259-

1276.

Muller,A. Benefits of Organic Agriculture as a Climate Change Adaptation and

Mitigation Strategy in Developing Countries. 2009.

Muller,M. (2007) Adapting to climate change: water management for urban

resilience. Environment and Urbanization, 19, 99-113.

Mumby,P.J. & Hastings,A. (2008) The impact of ecosystem connectivity on coral reef

resilience. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 854-862.

Murdiyarso,D., Robledo,C., Brown,S., Coto,O., Drexhage,J., Forner,C., Kanninen,M.,

Lipper,L., North,N. & Rondon,M. (2005) Linkages between mitigation and adaptation

in land-use change and forestry activities. Tropical forests and adaptation to climate

59

change: in search of synergies.Adaptation to climate change, sustainable livelihoods

and biological diversity, Turrialba, Costa Rica, March 2004., 122-153.

Nabuurs,G.J., Masera,O., Andrasko,K., Benitez-Ponce,P., Boer,R., Dutschke,M.,

Elsiddig,E., Ford-Robertson,J., Frumhoff,P., Karjalainen,T., Krankina,O., Kurz,W.A.,

Matsumoto,K., Oyhantcabal,W., Ravindranath,N.H., Sanz Sanchez,M.J. & Zhang,X.

(2007) Forestry. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group

III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (eds B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave & L. A. Meyer), pp. 541-

584. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

Nelson,K.C., Palmer,M.A., Pizzuto,J.E., Moglen,G.E., Angermeier,P.L.,

Hilderbrand,R.H., Dettinger,M. & Hayhoe,K. (2008) Forecasting the combined

effects of urbanization and climate change on stream ecosystems: from impacts to

management options. Journal of Ecology, 46, 154-163.

Nepstad,D.C., Stickler,C.M., Soares,B. & Merry,F. (2008) Interactions among

Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 363, 1737-

1746.

Nitschke,C.R. & Innes,J.L. (2008) Integrating climate change into forest management

in South-Central British Columbia: An assessment of landscape vulnerability and

development of a climate-smart framework. Forest Ecology and Management, 256,

313-327.

Nkem,J., Santoso,H., Murdiyarso,D., Brockhaus,M. & Kanninen,M. (2007) Using

Tropical Forest Ecosystem Goods and Services for Planning Climate Change

Adaptation with Implications for Food Security and Poverty Reduction. Journal of

SAT agricultural research, 4.

Noble,I. The Changing Climate. Environment Matters: Climate Change and

Adaptation. 2007. World Bank.

Noss,R.F. (2001) Beyond Kyoto: Forest management in a time of rapid climate

change. Conservation Biology, 15, 578-590.

Nyong,A., Adesina,F. & Elasha,B. (2007) The value of indigenous knowledge in

climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel. Mitigation

and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 787-797.

O'Neill,G., Ukrainetz,N., Carlson,M., Cartwright,C., Jaquish,B., King,J.,

Krakowski,J., Russell,J., Stoehr,M., Xie,C. & Yanchuk,A. (2008) Assisted migration

to address climate change in British Columbia recommendations for interim seed

transfer standards. Technical Report - Ministry of Forests and Range, Forest Science

Program, British Columbia.

Obersteiner,M. (2006) Land use and climate change. Climate Change Impacts on the

Water Cycle, Resources and Quality, 25, 90.

60

Ogden,A.E. & Innes,J. (2007) Incorporating climate change adaptation considerations

into forest management planning in the boreal forest. International Forestry Review,

9, 713-733.

Olesen,J.E. (2006) Reconciling adaptation and mitigation to climate change in

agriculture. Journal de Physique Iv, 139, 403-411.

Olwig,M.F., Sorensen,M.K., Rasmussen,M.S., Danielsen,F., Selvam,V., Hansen,L.B.,

Nyborg,L., Vestergaard,K.B., Parish,F. & Karunagaran,V.M. (2007) Using remote

sensing to assess the protective role of coastal woody vegetation against tsunami

waves. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 28, 3153-3169.

Ortiz,R., Sayre,K.D., Govaerts,B., Gupta,R., Subbarao,G.V., Ban,T., Hodson,D.,

Dixon,J.A., Ortiz-Monasterio,J.I. & Reynolds,M. (2008) Climate change: Can wheat

beat the heat? Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 126, 46-58.

Osbahr,H., Twyman,C., Neil Adger,W. & Thomas,D.S.G. (2008) Effective livelihood

adaptation to climate change disturbance: Scale dimensions of practice in

Mozambique. Geoforum.

Paavola,J. (2008) Livelihoods, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in

Morogoro, Tanzania. Environmental Science & Policy, 11, 642-654.

Palmer,M.A., Reidy Liermann,C.A., Nilsson,C., Florke,M., Alcamo,J., Lake,P.S. &

Bond,N. (2008) Climate change and the world's river basins: anticipating

management options. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6, 81-89.

Palumbi,S.R., Sandifer,P.A., Allan,J.D., Beck,M.W., Fautin,D.G., Fogarty,M.J.,

Halpern,B.S., Incze,L.S., Leong,J.A., Norse,E., Stachowicz,J.J. & Wall,D.H. (2009)

Managing for ocean biodiversity to sustain marine ecosystem services. Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment, 0.

Pasche,E., Ujeyl,G., Goltermann,D., Meng,J., Nehlsen,E. & Wilke,M. (2008)

Cascading flood compartments with adaptive response. Flood Recovery, Innovation

and Response, 118, 303-312.

Paterson,J., Araujo,M.B., Berry,P.M., Piper,J. & Rounsevell,M.D.A. (2008)

Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Threat to Biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 22,

1352-1355.

Pearson,R.G. & Dawson,T.P. (2005) Long-distance plant dispersal and habitat

fragmentation: identifying conservation targets for spatial landscape planning under

climate change. Biological Conservation, 123, 389-401.

Perez-Maqueo,O., Intralawan,A. & Martinez,M.L. (2007) Coastal disasters from the

perspective of ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 63, 273-284.

Peterson,C.H. & Bishop,M.J. (2005) Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Beach

Nourishment. Bioscience, 55, 887-896.

61

Phillips,O.L., Lewis,S.L., Baker,T.R., Chao,K.J. & Higuchi,N. (2008) The changing

Amazon forest. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological

Sciences, 363, 1819-1827.

Pielke,R., Prins,G., Rayner,S. & Sarewitz,D. (2007) Lifting the taboo on adaptation.

Nature, 445, 597-598.

Pressey,R.L., Cabeza,M., Watts,M.E., Cowling,R.M. & Wilson,K.A. (2007)

Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22, 583-

592.

ProAct Network. The Role of Environmental Management and eco-engineering in

Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. 2008.

Pruss-Ustun,A. & Corvalan,C. Preventing Disease Through Healthy Environments.

Towards an estimate of the environmental burden of disease. Executive summary.

World Health Organisation. 2006.

Ptato,T. (2008) Conceptual framework for assessment and management of ecosystem

impacts of climate change. Ecological Complexity, 5, 329-338.

Quintero,J.D. Mainstreaming Conservation in Infrastructure Projects. 2007. World

Bank.

Ragen,T.J., Huntington,H.P. & Hovelsrud,G.K. (2008) Conservation of Arctic marine

mammals faced with climate change. Ecological Applications, 18, S166-S174.

Rahel,F.J., Bierwagen,B. & Taniguchi,Y. (2008) Managing aquatic species of

conservation concern in the face of climate change and invasive species. Conservation

Biology, 22, 551-561.

Rao,K.P.C., Verchot,L.V., Laarman,J. & . (2007) Adaptation to Climate Change

through Sustainable Management and Development of Agroforestry Systems. Journal

of SAT agricultural research, 4.

Ravindranath,N. (2007) Mitigation and adaptation synergy in forest sector. Mitigation

and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 843-853.

Reid,H. & Huq,S. (2005) Climate change - biodiversity and livelihood impacts.

Tropical forests and adaptation to climate change: in search of synergies.Adaptation

to climate change, sustainable livelihoods and biological diversity, Turrialba, Costa

Rica, March 2004., 57-70.

Reid,H., Sahlen,L., Stage,J. & MacGregor,J. (2008) Climate change impacts on

Namibia's natural resources and economy. Climate Policy, 8, 452-466.

Reid,H., Simms,A. & Johnson,V. Up in smoke? Asia and the Pacific: the threat from

climate change to human development and the environment. The fifth report from the

working group on climate change and development. Murphy, M. 1-96. 2007.

Reid,H. & Swiderska,K. Biodiversity, climate change and poverty: exploring the

links. 2008. International Institute for Environment and Development.

62

Reidsma,P. (2007) Adaptation to climate change: European agriculture. Adaptation to

climate change: European agriculture, 204.

Reidsma,P. & Ewert,F. (2008) Regional Farm Diversity Can Reduce Vulnerability of

Food Production to Climate Change. Ecology and Society, 13.

Resurreccion,B., Sajor,E. & Fajber,E. Climate Adaptation in Asia: Knowledge Gaps

and Research Issues in South East Asia. 2008. Nepal, ISET-Nepal.

Richards,J.A., Mokrech,M., Berry,P.M. & Nicholls,R.J. (2008) Regional assessment

of climate change impacts on coastal and fluvial ecosystems and the scope for

adaptation. Climatic Change, 90, 141-167.

Righelato,R. & Spracklen,D.V. (2007) Carbon Mitigation by Biofuels or by Saving

and Restoring Forests? Science, 317, 902.

Rosenzweig,C. & Tubiello,F. (2007) Adaptation and mitigation strategies in

agriculture: an analysis of potential synergies. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies

for Global Change, 12, 855-873.

Roy,V. & de Blois,S. (2008) Evaluating hedgerow corridors for the conservation of

native forest herb diversity. Biological Conservation, 141, 298-307.

Sanford,M.P. (2009) Valuating Mangrove Ecosystems as Coastal Protection in Post-

Tsunami South Asia. Natural Areas Journal, 29, 91-95.

Schliep,R., Bertzky,M., Hirschnitz,M. & Stoll-Kleemann,S. (2008) Changing climate

in protected areas? Risk perception of climate change by biosphere reserve managers.

Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 17, 116-124.

Seck,M., bou Mamouda,M.N. & Wade,S. (2005) Case study 4: Senegal - Adaptation

and mitigation through "produced environments": The case for agriculture

intensification in Senegal. Ids Bulletin-Institute of Development Studies, 36, 71-+.

Sevrin,D. (2008) Influence of climatic change on silviculture and populiculture in

particular. Bulletin Trimestriel - Centre de Populiculture du Hainaut.

Shaw,R. (2006) Community-based climate change adaptation in Vietnam: inter-

linkages of environment, disaster, and human security. Multiple Dimension of Global

Environmental Changes.TERI Publication.

Shiferaw,B.A., Okello,J. & Reddy,R.V. Adoption and adaptation of natural resource

management innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections on key lessons and

best practices. Environment, Development and Sustainability . 2007.

Simpson,J.D. & Wang,B.S.P. (2007) The National Tree Seed Centre celebrates 40

years. Forestry Chronicle, 83, 719-722.

Sivakumar,M.V.K. (2005) Impacts of sand storms/dust storms on agriculture. Natural

Disasters and Extreme Events in Agriculture: Impacts and Mitigation, 159-177.

63

Skelly,D.K., Joseph,L.N., Possingham,H.P., Freidenburg,L.K., Farrugia,T.J.,

Kinnison,M.T. & Hendry,A.P. (2007) Evolutionary responses to climate change.

Conservation Biology, 21, 1353-1355.

Smale,M. (2005) Valuing crop biodiversity: on-farm genetic resources and economic

change. Valuing crop biodiversity: on-farm genetic resources and economic change,

xvi.

Smith,C. & Levermore,G. (2008) Designing urban spaces and buildings to improve

sustainability and quality of life in a warmer world. Energy Policy, 36, 4558-4562.

Speybroeck,J., Bonte,D., Courtens,W., Gheskiere,T., Grootaert,P., Maelfait,J.P.,

Mathys,M., Provoost,S., Sabbe,K. & Stienen,E.W.M. (2006) Beach nourishment: an

ecologically sound coastal defence alternative? A review. Aquatic Conservation:

Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 16, 419-435.

Speybroeck,J., Hendrickx,F., Degraer,S. & Vincx,M. The ecological impact of beach

nourishment and the restrained habitat of key species: experimental insights and field

data. 2007.

Spittlehouse,D.L. (2005) Integrating climate change adaptation into forest

management. Forestry Chronicle, 81, 691-695.

Stern,N. The Economics of Climate Change. The Stern Review. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK. 2007.

Sterr,H. (2008) Assessment of vulnerability and adaptation to sea-level rise for the

coastal zone of Germany. Journal of Coastal Research, 24, 380-393.

Stringer,L. (2008) Can the UN Convention to Combat Desertification guide

sustainable use of the world's soils? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6,

138-144.

Suarez-Seoane,S., Osborne,P.E. & Rosema,A. (2004) Can climate data from

METEOSAT improve wildlife distribution models? Ecography, 27, 629-636.

Sudmeier-Rieux,K., Qureshi., Peduzzi,R.A., Nessi,P., Breguet,J., Dubois,A.,

Jaboyedoff,A., Jaubert,R., Rietbergen,S., Klaus,R. & Cheema,M.A. Disaster Risk,

Livelihoods and Natural Barriers, Strengthening Decision-Making Tools for Disaster

Risk Reduction - A case study from Northern Pakistan. 2007. IUCN Pakistan,

GIAN, UNEP, UNIL.

Sudmeier-Rieux,K.H.M.A.R.a.S.R.e. Ecosystems, Livelihoods and Disasters An

integrated approach to disaster risk management. 2006. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

and Cambridge, UK. x + 58 pp.

Sugiyama,M., Nicholls,R.J. & Vafeidis,A. Estimating the Economic Cost of Sea-Level

Rise. MIT Global Change Joint Program, Report 156. 2008.

Tanaka,N. (2009) Vegetation bioshields for tsunami mitigation: review of

effectiveness, limitations, construction, and sustainable management. Landscape and

Ecological Engineering, 5, 71-79.

64

Thomas,D.S.G. & Twyman,C. (2005) Equity and justice in climate change adaptation

amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Global Environmental Change-Human

and Policy Dimensions, 15, 115-124.

Thomas,R.J., de Pauw,E., Qadir,M., Amri,A., Pala,M., Yahyaoui,A., El-

Bouhssini,M., Baum,M., Iñiguez,L. & Shideed,K. (2007) Increasing the Resilience of

Dryland Agro-ecosystems to Climate Change. Journal of SAT agricultural research,

4.

Tol,R.S.J., Bohn,M., Downing,T.E., Guillerminet,M.L., Hizsnyik,E., Kasperson,R.,

Lonsdale,K., Mays,C., Nicholls,R.J., Olsthoorn,A.A., Pfeifle,G., Poumadere,M.,

Toth,F.L., Vafeidis,A.T., Van der Werff,P.E. & Yetkiner,I.H. (2006) Adaptation to

five metres of sea level rise. Journal of Risk Research, 9, 467-482.

Tolimieri,N. & Levin,P. (2004) Differences in responses of chinook salmon to climate

shifts: implications for conservation. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 70, 155-167.

Tompkins,E.L. & Adger,W.N. (2004a) Building resilience to climate change through

adaptive management of natural resources. Ecology and Society.

Tompkins,E.L. & Adger,W.N. (2004b) Does Adaptive Management of Natural

Resources Enhance Resilience to Climate Change? Ecology and Society, 9, 10.

Tornqvist,T.E. & Meffert,D.J. (2008) Sustaining coastal urban ecosystems. Nature

Geoscience, 1, 805-806.

UN. Climate Change Adaptation in Africa. Scoping Paper for the Expert Group

Meeting on Climate Change Adaptation. African Ministerial Conference on the

Environment. 2008.

UNEP-WCMC. In the front line: shoreline protection and other ecosystem services

from mangroves and coral reefs. 2006. Cambridge, UK, UNEP-WCMC.

UNESCO. Water in a Changing World. 3. 2009. UNESCO. United Nations World

Water Development Report.

UNFCCC. United Nations framework convention on climate change. 1992.

UNFCCC. Technologies for adaptation to climate change. Brocuhre. UNFCCC

Secretariat. 2006.

UNFCCC. The Nairobi Work Programme—The Second Phase. Brochure.

http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/application/pdf/nwpbrochurenov2008.pdf. 2008.

Uyigue,E. & Agho,M. Coping with climate change and environmental degradation in

the Niger Delta of Southern Nigeria. 2007. Nigeria, CREDC.

Vaselli,S., Bulleri,F. & Benedetti-Cecchi,L. (2008) Hard coastal-defence structures as

habitats for native and exotic rocky-bottom species. Marine Environmental Research,

66, 395-403.

65

Veken,S.v.d., Hermy,M., Vellend,M., Knapen,A. & Verheyen,K. (2008) Garden

plants get a head start on climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,

6.

Verchot,L., V, Mackensen,J., Kandji,S., Noordwijk,M., Tomich,T., Ong,C.,

Albrecht,A., Bantilan,C., Anupama,K., V & Palm,C. (2005) Opportunities for linking

adaptation and mitigation in agroforestry systems. Tropical forests and adaptation to

climate change: in search of synergies.Adaptation to climate change, sustainable

livelihoods and biological diversity, Turrialba, Costa Rica, March 2004., 103-121.

Verchot,L., V, Noordwijk,M., Kandji,S., Tomich,T., Ong,C., Albrecht,A.,

Mackensen,J., Bantilan,C., Anupama,K., V & Palm,C. (2007) Climate change: linking

adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies

for Global Change, 12, 901-918.

Villamore,G.B. & Lasco,R.D. Biodiversity and Climate Change: restoring the

connectivity for globally threatened species requiring landscape level conservation.

2008. Laguna, Philippines, World Agroforestry Centre.

Visser,M.E. (2008) Keeping up with a warming world; assessing the rate of

adaptation to climate change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences,

275, 649-659.

Von Maltitz,G.P., Scholes, R.J, Erasmus,B., Letsoalo & A (2007) Adapting

Conservation Strategies to Climate Change in Southern Africa. Climate Change and

Adaptation.

Von Maltitz,G.P., Scholes,R.J., Erasmus,B. & Letsoalo,A. Adapting Conservation Strategies to Accommodate Impacts of Climate Change in Southern Africa. AIACC Working Paper No. 35. 2006. CSIR, South Africa.

Vos,C., Berry,P., Opdam,P., Baveco,H., Nijhof,B., O'Hanley,J., Bell,C. & Kuipers,H.

(2008) Adapting landscapes to climate change: examples of climate-proof ecosystem

networks and priority adaptation zones. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45.

Walling,L. & Creary-Chevannes,M. (2004) Coral reef monitoring for climate change

impact assessment and climate change adaption policy development.

Walton,M.E.M., Samonte-Tan,G.P.B., Primavera,J.H., Edwards-Jones,G. & Le

Vay,L. (2006) Are mangroves worth replanting? The direct economic benefits of a

community-based reforestation project. Environmental Conservation, 33, 335-343.

Webbe,J. Mainstreaming Biodiversity within Climate Change Adaptation: Review by

the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. AdaptNet Policy Forum 08-

07-E-Ad, 05 August 2008. 2008.

Weltzien,E., Rattunde,H., Clerget,B., Siart,S., Toure,A. & Sagnard,F. (2006)

Sorghum diversity and adaptation to drought in West Africa. Enhancing the use of

crop genetic diversity to manage abiotic stress in agricultural production

systems.Proceedings of a workshop, Budapest, Hungary, 23-27 May, 2005, 31-38.

66

WHO. Protecting Health from Climate Change: Report for the World Health Day

2008. 2008. Switzerland, World Health Organisation.

Williams,P., Hannah,L., Andelman,S., Midgley,G., Araujo,M., Hughes,G., Manne,L.,

Martinez-Meyer,E. & Pearson,R. (2005) Planning for climate change: Identifying

minimum-dispersal corridors for the Cape proteaceae. Conservation Biology, 19,

1063-1074.

Wilson,E. & Piper,J. (2008) Spatial planning for biodiversity in Europe's changing

climate. European Environment, 135-151.

World Bank. Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Adaptation Nature-Based Solutions

from the World Bank Portfolio. 2008. The International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development / THE WORLD BANK.

Worm,B., Barbier,E.B., Beaumont,N., Duffy,J.E., Folke,C., Halpern,B.S.,

Jackson,J.B.C., Lotze,H.K., Micheli,F., Palumbi,S.R., Sala,E., Selkoe,K.A.,

Stachowicz,J.J. & Watson,R. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem

services. Science, 314, 787-790.

WRI. World Resources 2008: Roots of Resilience-Growing the Wealth of the Poor.

2008. Washington, DC: WRI.

Yanagisawa,H., Koshimura,S., Goto,K., Miyagi,T., Imamura,F., Ruangrassamee,A. &

Tanavud,C. (2009) The reduction effects of mangrove forest on a tsunami based on

field surveys at Pakarang Cape, Thailand and numerical analysis. Estuarine Coastal

and Shelf Science, 81, 27-37.

Zaunberger,K., Agne,S. & Miko,L. The Climate Change-Biodiversity Nexus. Key to

co-benefit approaches. European Commission, Directorate General for Environment.

Draft. 2009.

Ziervogel,G., Cartwright,A., Tas,A., Adejuwon,J., Zwemoglio,F., Shale,M. &

Smith,B. Climate Change and Adaptation in African Agriculture. 2008. Sweden,

Stockholm Environment Institute.